Appellant - Victor Hugo JIMINEZ Respondent - Regina
JUDGMENT OF:
Hulme J at 1; Hidden J at 16; Greg James J at 16
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Craigie DJC
COUNSEL:
Appellant - TL Buddin SC Respondent - R Mayne
SOLICITORS:
Appellant - TA Murphy Respondent - Commonwealth DPP
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law; Drugs; Importation of Cocaine; 3kg; Courier; Sentence
ACTS CITED:
Customs Act S233B S235
DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal granted; Appeal upheld; The sentence imposed by Craigie DCJ is quashed; In lieu thereof, the Applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine years with a non-parole period of six years, both periods to date from 31 December 1996 and the non-parole period to expire on 30 December 2002; In accordance with Section 16F of the Crimes Act (Cth) an explanation of the effect of this sentence is to be provided to the Applicant by his legal advisers
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 60384 of 1997
HULME J HIDDEN J GREG JAMES J
Wednesday, 24 February 1999
REGINA -v- Victor Hugo JIMINEZ JUDGMENT
1 HULME J: These Reasons concern an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by Judge Craigie on 17 July 1997 of a term of imprisonment of 12 years commencing on 31 December 1996 with a non-parole period of 6 years 8 months commencing on the same day. 2 On 2 May 1997 the Applicant had pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 233B(1)(b) of the Customs Act in that he had imported a prohibited substance namely cocaine. The quantity of pure cocaine was 3.01kgs. It had a wholesale value of $432,000 and a street value of $786,000. Under the Customs Act a quantity of 2 kilograms or over constitutes a commercial quantity and the maximum penalty prescribed for the importation of such a quantity is life imprisonment. 3 The Applicant was a courier whose reward was to be $30,000, over and above expenses. He travelled with his wife and infant son to Latin America in December 1996 returning later that month. A suitcase, part of the Applicant’s luggage, had become separated from him in the course of his return flights and it arrived in Australia the next day as unaccompanied luggage. The Customs Service opened it and found the cocaine. It was delivered by members of the Federal Police to the Applicant. Later that day as he left his premises with the suitcase he was arrested. There followed what the Judge described as “the first of many lies told by the offender to the Federal Police”. A change of heart and an intention to plead guilty became apparent in April 1997 some time after the Applicant became possessed of the full Crown brief. His Honour gave the Applicant credit for pleading guilty and saving the…
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 Jiminez
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Jiminez [1999] NSWCCA 7
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jiminez was charged with the importation of three kilograms of cocaine, acting as a courier. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Jiminez pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to sentencing.
The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the importation of such a large quantity of drugs. The court considered various factors, including the role Jiminez played in the importation, the quantity of drugs, and the potential harm caused by the importation of cocaine. The defence argued for a sentence that would reflect Jiminez's limited role and his willingness to cooperate with authorities.
The court found that Jiminez played a significant role in the importation of the drugs, although it was acknowledged that he was not the mastermind behind the operation. The court considered the potential harm caused by the importation of three kilograms of cocaine and the need to deter similar offences. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account Jiminez's cooperation with authorities and his limited role in the importation. The court determined that a sentence of five years imprisonment was appropriate, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months.
The court ordered that Jiminez be detained in custody until the expiration of the non-parole period, after which he will be eligible for parole subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.