Kibukamusoke, John v The Queen [1998] FCA 859

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AG 10 of 1998 CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: JOHN KIBUKAMUSOKE Appellant AND: THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGES: HIGGINS, HEEREY AND COOPER JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 6 JULY 1998 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AG 10 of 1998 CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: JOHN KIBUKAMUSOKE Appellant AND: THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGES: HIGGINS, HEEREY AND COOPER JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 6 JULY 1998 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIGGINS J:

1. This is an appeal against a sentence or, strictly speaking, sentences, imposed by Gallop J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Without rehearsing each and every one of the sentences imposed, the sentences aggregated eight years as a head sentence and a non-parole period of four years was fixed. Those sentences date from December of last year. The attack on the sentences imposed did not reveal any error of principle which his Honour had made in arriving at those sentences nor does it seem to me that on examining the authorities and after listening to the submissions of counsel that the sentences imposed are so far out of the norm as to themselves bespeak error.

2. In particular, whilst there were, of course, compelling personal circumstances which the appellant could call in aid there was, as his Honour noted, a lack of contrition, there was a lack of explanation as to where the moneys which had been defrauded from the tax payer had gone, a lack of significant reparation. In cases where there has been a lower non-parole period imposed it does appear that the personal circumstances of those offenders was regarded as appropriately relevant to do that. Just to take the case of McDonald, for example, there was significant remorse, there were other sentences which had been imposed which formed part of the same general pattern of behaviour and even there the sentence was not greatly distinguishable from the present. I would dismiss the appeal. I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Higgins. Associate: Date: 1998 Counsel for the Appellant: A. Doig Solicitors for the Appellant: Deacons Graham James Counsel for the Respondent: G. Lalor Solicitors for the Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Date of hearing: 6 July 1998 Date of judgment: 6 July 1998