Legal Research
Cases
R v Campillo Vaquere

R v Campillo Vaquere

Case [2004] NSWCCA 271 13 August 2004

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v CAMPILLO VAQUERE [2004] NSWCCA 271

HEARING DATE(S): 9 October 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Howie J at 92

DECISION: Dismiss the appeal against conviction; Grant leave to appeal against sentence; Dismiss the appeal against sentence.

PARTIES :
Regina
Jose Campillo Vaquere

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60067/01

COUNSEL: Crown: C O'Donnell
Appellant in person

SOLICITORS: Crown: Commonwealth DPP
Appellant in person

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Judge Keleman

- 32 -

60067/01

IPP JA

HULME J

HOWIE J

Friday, 13 August 2004

Jose Manuel CAMPILLO VAQUERE v REGINA

Judgment

1 IPP JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Hulme J and with his Honour’s reasons.

2 HULME J: On 6 November 2000, following a 5 week trial, the abovenamed Appellant was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia of not less than a commercial quantity of cocaine. On 9 February 2001, Judge Keleman sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment for life, commencing on 7 December 1988, such term to included a non-parole period of 24 years.

3 The Appellant has appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed. On the appeal against conviction he represented himself. On the appeal against sentence he was represented by Mr Paul Byrne SC and Ms Bashir. A convenient introduction to the issues which arise in the appeal is to quote from Judge Keleman’s remarks on sentence. As one of the issues on sentence is parity with co-offenders, it is convenient to quote at somewhat greater length than might otherwise be necessary.

The importation in which the prisoner was knowingly concerned occurred on 5 December 1998 when the yacht, the Maeva, captained by Gregory Meggett, entered Coffs Harbour following a lengthy voyage across the Pacific Ocean from Central America, carrying on board a Boston Whaler dinghy which contained, concealed within its fibreglass sandwich hull, 225 brown plastic packages. The contents of one of the packages had apparently dissolved and leaked out…

The total weight of the white powder found in the 224 packages was 224.8 kilograms, and a subsequent analysis of representative samples of the powder revealed that it contained 171.2 kilograms of pure cocaine, with an estimated value of 40 to 50 million dollars. The amount of pure cocaine in the dinghy was more than eighty-five times the prescribed commercial quantity for cocaine. At the time of that importation, the quantity of cocaine concealed in the dinghy was the largest importation of cocaine into Australia that had been detected.

The Prisoner was arrested on 7 December 1998 at a boat ramp at Coffs Harbour, together with co-offenders Beatriz Gonzales-Bates Suarez and Gregory Meggett, shortly after the Prisoner towed the dinghy from the water and up the boat ramp… At about the same time another co-offender, Robert Flavel, was arrested as he attempted to leave Coffs Harbour from the airport.

Meggett, following his arrest, pleaded guilty to importing the cocaine…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Campillo Vaquere

Details

AGLC: R v Campillo Vaquere [2004] NSWCCA 271
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 271
Decision Date: 13 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Campillo Vaquere, the appellant, Jose Manuel Campillo Vaquere, was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the importation of a commercial quantity of cocaine. He appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appeal was heard by Ipp JA, Hulme J, and Howie J of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction but granted leave to appeal against the sentence, ultimately dismissing the sentence appeal as well.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the evidence presented at trial was admissible, whether the trial was conducted fairly, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the appellant's role in it. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the admissibility of the crown witness's evidence, the integrity of the trial process, or the severity of the sentence. The appellant's arguments focused on inconsistencies in the witness's statements, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and claims of bias on the part of the trial judge. The court concluded that the jury was properly instructed on the need to assess the credibility of the evidence and that the appellant's conviction was supported by substantial circumstantial evidence.

Regarding the sentence, the court found no error in the trial judge's characterisation of the offence as falling within the worst category, given the significant quantity of cocaine involved and the appellant's substantial involvement. The court rejected the argument for parity with co-offenders, noting that the appellant's role, though different, was of equivalent culpability and that the sentence imposed was neither excessive nor disproportionate to similar cases.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction, grant leave to appeal against the sentence, and dismiss the appeal against the sentence.

Orders