R v Marquez; R v Maranon - [2020] NSWDC 83

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Marquez; R v Maranon [2020] NSWDC 83
Hearing dates: 31 January 2020
Date of orders: 31 January 2020
Decision date: 31 January 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
Marquez: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years: at [30].
Maranon: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years: at [30].

Catchwords: CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug — Sentence by State court for offence against Commonwealth law
SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Circumstances of offence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — General and specific deterrence — Prevalence of offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited: Chong v R [2011] NSWCCA 182
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Duflaut v R [2019] NSWCCA 21
Gwardys v R [2019] NSWCCA 62
Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520
Lindsay v R [2012] NSWCCA 124
Neto v R [2016] QCA 217
R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106
R v Sutton [2013] QCA 151
Woodrum v R [2019] NSWCCA 270
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1
ZZ v R [2019] NSWCCA 286
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)

Matias Marquez (Offender)
Alberto Maranon (Offender)
Representation:
Ms L Hancock (Crown)
Mr T Sphor (Solicitor for the Offender – Marquez)
Ms N Evans (Counsel for the Offender – Maranon)

File Number(s): 2019/118189; 2019/118181
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On the afternoon of Monday 15 April 2019 two, non‑English speaking Argentinian nationals arrived at Sydney Airport on QF28 from Santiago in Chile. Mr Marquez, who is 35 years old, had in his luggage a one litre bottle of Havana Club alcohol which contained 620 grams of pure cocaine. Mr Maranon, who is 25 years old, was carrying in his luggage a one litre bottle of Glenlivet scotch which contained 653 grams of pure cocaine. The Crown does not allege a joint commission of the offence between these two gentlemen even though there is evidence of contact between them prior to their arrival in Australia.
They both pleaded guilty to one count of importing a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug, contrary to s 307(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Both of them have been in custody since their arrest on 15 April 2019.
The task of sentencing these gentlemen has been assisted greatly by the preparation of comprehensive written submissions by the Crown and by Ms Evans, for Mr Maranon and Mr Spohr, for Mr Marquez. There is no substantive contest between the parties as to the principles to be applied or as to the applicability of a number of allegedly comparative cases in determining…

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 Marquez; R v Maranon

Details

AGLC: R v Marquez; R v Maranon [2020] NSWDC 83
Case: [2020] NSWDC 83
Decision Date: 31 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Marquez; R v Maranon involved two defendants charged under Commonwealth law for drug offences, specifically the importation of a border-controlled prohibited plant. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which exercised its authority under Commonwealth legislation to try and sentence the offenders. The defendants contested various aspects of the charges and the appropriate sentences to be imposed.

The primary legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of Commonwealth drug importation laws, the relevance of the defendants' character and the circumstances of the offence, and the appropriate sentencing principles to be applied. The court had to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of each defendant, and the broader societal implications of drug importation, including deterrence. The defendants argued for mitigating factors and contended that the proposed sentences were excessive.

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence, found the defendants guilty as charged. In determining the sentences, the court emphasised the serious nature of drug importation offences, the significant role each defendant played, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also took into account the prevalence of such offences and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes. Ultimately, the court sentenced each defendant to a term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years.

The final orders of the court were that Marquez and Maranon each be imprisoned for 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years, reflecting the court's assessment of the gravity of the offences and the need for an appropriate punitive and deterrent response.

Orders

Orders of the court

Marquez: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years: at [30].

Maranon: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years: at [30].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Marquez; R v Maranon [2020] NSWDC 83
Hearing dates:	31 January 2020
Date of orders:	31 January 2020
Decision date:	31 January 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	Marquez: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years: at [30]. Maranon: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years: at [30].
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug — Sentence by State court for offence against Commonwealth law SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Circumstances of offence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — General and specific deterrence — Prevalence of offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Chong v R [2011] NSWCCA 182 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Duflaut v R [2019] NSWCCA 21 Gwardys v R [2019] NSWCCA 62 Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520 Lindsay v R [2012] NSWCCA 124 Neto v R [2016] QCA 217 R v Nguyen; R v Pham (2010) 205 A Crim R 106 R v Sutton [2013] QCA 151 Woodrum v R [2019] NSWCCA 270 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1 Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1 ZZ v R [2019] NSWCCA 286
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matias Marquez (Offender) Alberto Maranon (Offender)
Representation:	Ms L Hancock (Crown) Mr T Sphor (Solicitor for the Offender – Marquez) Ms N Evans (Counsel for the Offender – Maranon)
File Number(s):	2019/118189; 2019/118181
Publication restriction:	Nil