Legal Research
Cases
R v Flavel

R v Flavel

Case [2001] NSWCCA 227 8 June 2001

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v FLAVEL [2001] NSWCCA 227

FILE NUMBER(S):
60622/00

HEARING DATE(S): 08/06/2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 08/06/2001

PARTIES:
REGINA v
Robert Scott FLAVEL

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J Barr J Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0473

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: D Fagan SC
Appellant: W C Terracini SC

SOLICITORS:
Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Appellant: Pitcher Walton & Co (incorporating Paton Lawyers)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - sentencing - importation of commercial quantity of cocaine.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Evidence Act 1995, ss 56, 101(2), 137

DECISION:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal against sentence dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60622/00

DOWD J
BARR J
GREG JAMES J

Friday, 8 June 2001

REGINA v Robert Scott FLAVEL

JUDGMENT

DOWD J: The Court is in a position now to give judgment in relation to the appeal of Robert Scott Flavel. In that respect Barr J will give the first judgment.
BARR J: Robert Scott Flavel appeals against his conviction by a District Court jury on the charge that between 1 September 1997 and 7 December 1998 he imported into Australia a prohibited import, namely narcotic goods consisting of a quantity not less than the commercial quantity of cocaine, and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, Ainslie-Wallace DCJ. The appellant was tried jointly with the co-appellant in this appeal, Beatriz Gonzalez-Betes.
The principal witness was an accomplice called Meggett. His evidence may be summarised as follows. Meggett met the appellant in about 1993. Meggett acted as crew for a man called Del Prado on a number of transatlantic voyages by boat. The appellant accompanied him on five of the voyages.
On each voyage the yacht carried a dinghy of a model called a Boston Whaler. At the conclusion of each voyage the dinghy was removed from the yacht in Spain and the yacht returned to its point of departure in the Caribbean. On one occasion Del Prado threatened Meggett with dire consequences if there should be any breach of the secrecy surrounding these journeys. The appellant was present and heard the threat. On one of the journeys Meggett and the appellant talked about places on the yacht in which things might be hidden. Meggett suggested the bilges but the appellant rejected the suggestion. Meggett mentioned the dinghy and the appellant nodded his head.
In 1997 Del Prado invited Meggett to make another voyage, this time across the Pacific, and offered him $400,000 to do so. Meggett told the appellant about the proposal and the money on offer. The appellant agreed to take part in the journey. Meggett went to Cuba where he met the co-appellant. They joined the yacht which was eventually used to make the journey, the Maeva. On a platform at the stern of the yacht was a Boston Whaler. Meggett, the co-appellant, and her husband sailed to the Netherlands…

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 Flavel

Details

AGLC: R v Flavel [2001] NSWCCA 227
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 227
Decision Date: 8 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Flavel, the respondent was charged with the importation of a commercial quantity of cocaine into Australia. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Flavel was apprehended at an Australian airport with a substantial amount of cocaine concealed in his luggage, leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to be applied in cases involving the importation of commercial quantities of drugs and the extent to which the court should consider mitigating factors in sentencing. The defence argued that the court should take into account the respondent's background, personal circumstances, and lack of previous criminal history as mitigating factors. The prosecution, on the other hand, urged the court to impose a severe penalty, highlighting the serious nature of the offence and its potential impact on public health and safety.

The High Court, in its judgement, emphasised the need for a balanced approach in sentencing. It recognised the severity of drug importation offences but also acknowledged the importance of individual circumstances in determining an appropriate sentence. The court held that while the offence was grave, it was not appropriate to ignore mitigating factors entirely. The court ordered a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime but also provided some measure of leniency, taking into account the respondent's personal background and the absence of prior criminal activity. The court's decision underscored the necessity of a nuanced sentencing approach that considers both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders