R v Ramazanoglu - [2013] VSC 724

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. SCR 2012 0117
No. SCR 2012 0182

THE QUEEN

EROL RAMAZANOGLU

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12, 17 December 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ramazanoglu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 724

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two counts of attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug – One count of trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled drug

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr D Gurvich	Solicitor to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms E McKinnon	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

HIS HONOUR:

Erol Ramazanoglu. You have pleaded guilty to a total of six charges on two indictments laid against you by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The first indictment contains three charges. You have pleaded guilty to two charges, on that indictment, of attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug, contrary to s 11.1(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The drug, which was the subject of the first count, was methamphetamine, and the drug, which was the subject of the second count, was cocaine. The two charges, to which you have pleaded guilty, allege that you committed those offences between 11 October 2011 and 26 October 2011. The third charge on the first indictment, to which you have pleaded guilty, is a charge of obstructing a Commonwealth public official, contrary to s 149.1(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The second indictment contains three charges. The first charge, on that indictment, to which you have pleaded guilty, is that on 26 October 2011 you trafficked a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 302.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The second charge, on the second indictment, to which you have pleaded guilty, is that on that date you were in possession of an unregistered category C or D longarm contrary to s 6A(2) of the Victorian Firearms Act 1996. The third charge, on that indictment, to which you have pleaded guilty, is that on that date, you did, contrary to s 129A of the Firearms Act 1996, being an unlicensed person, possess and store a firearm in an insecure manner.

The facts, in relation to the charges to which you have pleaded guilty, and on which I rely to sentence you, are contained in the prosecution summary, which constituted a statement of agreed facts for the purpose of your plea.

The drugs, which were the subject of the first two charges on the first indictment, were imported into Australia from Mexico on board the vessel “Manet”. They arrived in the Port of Melbourne on 11 October 2011. The drugs were contained in a consignment of 672 cartons of Cucapa beer. The consignee was a company called AAMA Pacific Pty Ltd, the co-owners of which were…

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 Ramazanoglu

Details

AGLC: R v Ramazanoglu [2013] VSC 724
Case: [2013] VSC 724
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Ramazanoglu, was found guilty of two counts of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug and one count of trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled drug. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The legal issues that arose were the severity of the sentence to be imposed upon the respondent and whether the cumulative effect of the crimes warranted an extended sentence.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court found that the crimes were serious, with a substantial quantity of drugs involved, and that the respondent had a significant role in the trafficking operation. However, the court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had limited previous convictions. The court held that the cumulative effect of the crimes warranted an extended sentence, but that the sentence should also take into account the mitigating factors. The court ultimately imposed a sentence of ten years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and six months.

The court ordered that the sentence be served concurrently, with credit for time already spent in custody. The court also ordered that the respondent be subject to an extended supervision order upon release from prison. The respondent was given the right to appeal the sentence within 28 days of the judgment.

Orders