R v Ocampo Alvarez

Case [2018] QCA 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ocampo Alvarez [2018] QCA 162

PARTIES:

R
v
OCAMPO ALVAREZ, Juan Pablo
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 129 of 2016
SC No 409 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Sentence: 19 April 2016 (Mullins J)

DELIVERED ON:

10 July 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2018

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

2.   Leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring with co-offenders to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and to a further count of conspiring with the same co-offenders during the same period to traffic in the drug – where the applicant faced a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – where the applicant’s mitigating circumstances were given appropriate weight – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring with co-offenders to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and to a further count of conspiring with the same co-offenders during the same period to traffic in the drug – where the applicant complained of a lack of parity with the sentences of his co-offenders – whether the primary judge erred in sentencing

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring with co-offenders to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and to a further count of conspiring with the same co-offenders during the same period to traffic in the drug – where the applicant contends that the primary judge’s findings on contested questions of fact were wrong – where the applicant contends that the primary judge had not taken mitigating factors into account or had not given them sufficient weight – where the applicant contends that the primary judge had failed to identify the Act under which he was to be sentenced – whether these grounds of appeal were made out

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – POWER TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring with co-offenders to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug and to a further count of conspiring with the same co-offenders during the same period to traffic in the drug – where the applicant sought leave to adduce new evidence – whether leave to adduce new evidence should be granted

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 16E, s 16F, s 16G
Criminal Code (Qld), s…

Continue reading R v Ocampo Alvarez

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ocampo Alvarez [2018] QCA 162
Case
[2018] QCA 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ocampo Alvarez, appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge. Alvarez pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges relating to the importation and trafficking of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug. The maximum penalty for these offences was life imprisonment. Alvarez appealed on several grounds, including that the sentence was manifestly excessive, there was a lack of parity with his co-offenders, the primary judge had acted on the wrong principle, and the primary judge had failed to take into account or had not given sufficient weight to mitigating factors. Alvarez also sought leave to adduce new evidence.

The court considered whether Alvarez's appeal grounds were valid, focusing on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether there was a parity issue with the sentences of his co-offenders, and whether the primary judge had erred in sentencing. The court examined whether the primary judge had acted on the wrong principle and whether he had failed to take mitigating factors into account or had not given them sufficient weight. The court also considered whether the primary judge had failed to identify the relevant Act under which Alvarez was to be sentenced. Additionally, the court considered whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence.

The court found that the primary judge had appropriately weighed Alvarez's mitigating circumstances and had not imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The court determined that there was no error in the sentencing process and that the primary judge had not acted on the wrong principle. The court held that the primary judge had taken into account and given sufficient weight to the mitigating factors. The court found that the primary judge had correctly identified the relevant Act under which Alvarez was to be sentenced. The court also determined that there was no basis to grant leave to adduce new evidence.

Accordingly, the court refused leave to appeal against the sentence and leave to adduce further evidence. The sentence imposed by the primary judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

2. Leave to adduce further evidence is refused.

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.