The Queen v Aminda Claire Boyd

The Queen has appealed against the sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment imposed on Aminda Claire Boyd. The appeal is against the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge following the guilty plea by the appellant. The grounds of appeal challenge the sentence on the basis of premeditation, the appellant's flight from the scene, the starting point of the sentence, the appellant's pregnancy and the weight given to other credit factors.

The appeal hinges on the length of the sentence of imprisonment and whether it could properly be reduced to a period which would have permitted a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The appellant argues that the sentencing Judge erred in taking into account premeditation as an aggravating feature of the offending and in considering the appellant's flight from the scene as an aggravating feature. The appellant also contends that the starting point of the sentence was too high, given the maximum sentence for the offence and the relevant case law. Furthermore, the appellant submits that the evidence of her pregnancy at the time of sentencing is a factor that entitles this Court to revisit the sentence imposed. Lastly, the appellant argues that the Judge gave insufficient weight to other credit factors.

The Court found that the sentencing Judge did not err in taking into account premeditation as an aggravating feature of the offending. The Judge did not suggest that the violent offending was premeditated. Instead, the premeditation to which the Judge referred was the unlawful entry and attempted theft of prohibited drugs. Secondly, the Court held that the sentencing Judge did not wrongly take into account the appellant's flight from the scene as an aggravating feature. The Court found that the appellant's actions immediately after the commission of the crime were of some relevance in the context of the sentencing. Thirdly, the Court held that the starting point of four years’ imprisonment taken by the sentencing Judge was not unnecessarily high. The Court found that the starting point was within the range reasonably available to the sentencing Judge. Fourthly, the Court found that the evidence of the appellant's pregnancy at the time of sentencing was not a factor that entitled the Court to revisit the sentence imposed. Finally, the Court found that the Judge gave sufficient weight to other credit factors, including the appellant's progress in drug treatment and changes in her lifestyle since the offence.

The appeal fails and the sentence under appeal is upheld.