Legal Research
Cases
R v Gonzalez-Betes

R v Gonzalez-Betes

Case [2001] NSWCCA 226 8 June 2001

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. GONZALEZ-BETES [2001] NSWCCA 226

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60636 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 8 June 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 June 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
GONZALEZ-BETES, Beatriz

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1/74; Barr J at 2; Greg James J at 75

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0475

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: D.J. Fagan, SC.
App: W.G. Roser/J. Crespo

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: Nyman Gibson & Co.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against conviction - leave to appeal against sentence - drug importation - life sentence - evidence of importation technique similar to previous yacht journeys with dinghy of specific design - appellant said to have asserted knowledge of previous journeys but not to have been involved in them - admissibility of evidence - utility of evidence - conduct of Crown Prosecutor - form of summing-up - separation of cases - evidence of accomplice - cross-examination on matter deliberately not revealed in police interview - no substance in grounds of appeal - no error in sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Booth (1983) 8 A. Crim. R. 81
Pang (1999) 105 A. Crim. R. 474

DECISION: Appeal on conviction: appeal dismissed; Appeal on sentence: leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60636 of 2000

CORAM: DOWD, J.

FRIDAY 8 JUNE 2001

REGINA v. BEATRIZ GONZALEZ-BETES

JUDGMENT

1 DOWD, J: The court is in a position to give judgment in relation to the first appellant and Greg James, J. will give the first judgment.

2 GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence and an appeal against conviction by Beatriz Gonzalez-Betes Suarez, who was found guilty after a trial in the District Court of New South Wales on one count of having been knowingly concerned with Gregory Paul Meggett and Jose Manuel Campillo Vaquere in the importation into Australia of a prohibited import to which s.233B of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) applied, to wit, narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of cocaine being not less than the commercial quantity applicable to cocaine.

3 The quantity in this case was some 224.84 kilograms impure, 172.2 kilograms pure of the prohibited drug.

4 The appellant in respect of that offence was sentenced to a head sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years. The co-accused, Robert Scott Flavel, who was tried with this appellant, also appeals against conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him, which was a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

5 The person Meggett referred to in the charge had pleaded guilty and agreed to assist the authorities. He gave evidence in the relevant trial. Having regard to his role and to his assistance a sentence had been passed upon him of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole…

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 Gonzalez-Betes

Details

AGLC: R v Gonzalez-Betes [2001] NSWCCA 226
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 226
Decision Date: 8 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Gonzalez-Betes, appealed against his conviction and sentence for drug importation, seeking leave to appeal against the latter. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant contested the admissibility and utility of certain evidence presented during his trial, as well as the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor. The appellant also argued that the summing-up should have separated the cases of the appellant and his co-accused, and that there were issues with the cross-examination of an accomplice witness.

The court examined whether the evidence of the appellant's previous drug importation journeys, using a specific dinghy design, was admissible and had utility in the context of the current charges. The court also considered the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor, particularly in relation to the form of the summing-up and the handling of evidence from an accomplice. Furthermore, the court assessed the appellant's claims regarding the separation of cases and the cross-examination of the accomplice witness, as well as the substance of the grounds of appeal and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The court found that there was no substance in the appellant's grounds of appeal, as the evidence in question was both admissible and had utility in demonstrating the appellant's knowledge and involvement in the drug importation activities. The court also ruled that there was no error in the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor, and that the summing-up was appropriate given the circumstances. Additionally, the court determined that there was no merit in the appellant's claims regarding the separation of cases and the cross-examination of the accomplice witness. Finally, the court concluded that there was no error in the sentence imposed on the appellant, given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's criminal history.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal against the sentence. The conviction and sentence of the appellant remained unchanged, and the court's decision stood as the final determination in the matter.

Orders