R v Ramirez - [1999] NSWCCA 406

CITATION: R v Ramirez [1999] NSWCCA 406

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60251/99

HEARING DATE(S): 08/12/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 December 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Aidelyn Ramirez

JUDGMENT OF: James J; Sperling J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/1310

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney DCJ

COUNSEL: CK Maxwell QC (Crown)
DA Marr (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Doran Roberts & Co (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law and procedure - sentencing - no question of principle

DECISION: Appeal Dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60251/99

James J
Sperling J
Wednesday 8 December 1999

REGINA v AIDELYN RAMIREZ
JUDGMENT

1   JAMES J: Aidelyn Ramirez has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on her on 16 April 1999 in the District Court by his Honour Judge Viney. She had pleaded guilty to eight counts of using a false instrument, three counts of making a false instrument, and three counts of making a false statement with intent to obtain a financial advantage. The applicant was sentenced on each count of using a false instrument to a fixed term of penal servitude of three months to date from 8 February 2000 and on each count of making a false instrument or making a false statement with intent to obtain a financial advantage to a fixed term of penal servitude of six months also to date from 8 February 2000. Judge Viney made the sentences imposed commence from 8 February 2000, because on 10 October 1997 Judge Johnston had sentenced the applicant to sentences of four years, including minimum terms of two years six months commencing on 8 August 1997 and expiring on 7 February 2000.
2   In his remarks on sentence Judge Viney concisely summarised the facts of the offences. The applicant had passed valueless cheques to Coles and K-Mart, and had given false information in applications for credit at Grace Bros. The offences had been committed at various times between 18 August 1993 and 22 March 1997.
3   In his remarks on sentence Judge Viney rejected a claim made by the applicant, which was recorded in certain documents before his Honour, that the applicant had a gambling problem. His Honour found that the applicant is "simply a crook, she uses whatever pretext is available to excuse her blatant dishonesty."

His Honour commented;

"This woman seems to write cheques on closed accounts and manipulates bank accounts and credit accounts with a flamboyance which is quite bizarre. She seems able to convince people that she has immense wealth at her disposal and creates fantasies of grandeur that take people in."

4   His Honour noted that the applicant had a criminal history which included convictions for offences of dishonesty.
5   On 26 October 1993, his Honour had himself sentenced the applicant to terms of imprisonment on three charges of making a false statement. The applicant had committed the first three offences for which she was sentenced by his Honour on 16 April 1999, while she was on remand for the sentences which…

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 Ramirez

Details

AGLC: R v Ramirez [1999] NSWCCA 406
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 406
Decision Date: 8 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Ramirez, the defendant was convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced by the Court of Appeal. The nature of the dispute centred around the sentencing decision made by the trial judge. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant sought to challenge the sentence imposed on him following his conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in the assessment of the mitigating and aggravating factors, which in turn influenced the length and nature of the sentence imposed. The defendant argued that the trial judge had failed to properly consider certain mitigating factors, which should have led to a more lenient sentence. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the absence of any significant mitigating factors.

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing principles and the considerations outlined by the trial judge. It was noted that the trial judge had indeed considered a range of mitigating and aggravating factors, and had weighed them appropriately in reaching the final sentence. The court found no error in the trial judge's approach to sentencing and concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offence committed. As a result, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The court's decision affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with no further orders made in relation to the sentence. The defendant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the original sentence stands as imposed by the trial court.

Orders