R -v- SUAREZ-MEJIA [2002] WASCA 187
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 187 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:186/2001 | 20 MAY 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J PARKER J MILLER J | 17/07/02 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | CCA 186/2001: Appeal dismissed, CCA 189/2001: Application for leave refused | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN CARLOS ARTURO SUAREZ-MEJIA |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Sentence Crown appeal Possession of prohibited import Equivalent of 707 kilograms of pure cocaine Life imprisonment with non-parole period of 20 years Non-parole period not manifestly inadequate Criminal law Sentence Crown appeal Competence Non-parole period a "punishment imposed or order made" pursuant to Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(d) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AB(1) |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(d) |
Case References: | R v Campillo, unreported; District Ct of NSW (Keleman DCJ); No 99/11/0474 AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111 Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Inge v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 295 Jacovic v The Queen [2002] WASCA 149 Lauritsen v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 442 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 Punch v The Queen (1993) 9 WAR 486 R v Bateman [2000] NSWSC 915 R v Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Flavel [2001] NSWCCA 227 R v Gonzales-Betes [2001] NSWCCA 226 R v Good [1988] WAR 224 R v Meggett (1999) 107 A Crim R 257 R v Sherratt (2000) 112 A Crim R 177 R v Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48 R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Wong (1999) 48 NSWLR 340 Thompsett v The Queen [2001] WASCA 8 Vanit & Ors v The Queen (1997) 190 CLR 378 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Verschuren v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 467 Wangsaimas & Ors v The Queen (1996) 6 NTLR 14 Wong v The Queen (2001) 76 ALJR 79 Wood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 175 Boxtel v The Queen [1994] 2 VR 98 Chua v The Queen [2001] WASCA 353 DPP (Cth) v El Karhani (1990) 97 ALR 373 DPP v Buhagiar & Heathcote [1998] 4 VR 540 Gallagher v The Queen (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561 R v Barany (2000) 114 A Crim R 426 R v Beatriz Gonzales-Betes Suarez, unreported; DCt of NSW (Ainslie-Wallace DCJ), Library No 99/11/0475 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 R v Bernath [1997] 1 VR 271 R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v… |
Continue reading R v Suarez-Mejia
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Suarez-Mejia [2002] WASCA 187
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 187
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerns the case of Suarez-Mejia, who was convicted of possessing a prohibited import, equivalent to 707 kilograms of pure cocaine. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Australia. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on Suarez-Mejia, arguing that the non-parole period of 20 years was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to decide whether the non-parole period was manifestly inadequate and whether the appeal was competent. The appeal was also required to determine if the non-parole period was a "punishment imposed or order made" under the Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(d) and the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AB(1).
The court considered the nature of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, and the impact of the offence on the community. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and that the non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate. The court also found that the appeal was competent and that the non-parole period was a "punishment imposed or order made" under the relevant legislation. The court dismissed the Crown's appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal.
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Australia dismissed the Crown's appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The sentence imposed on Suarez-Mejia was affirmed as appropriate, and the non-parole period of 20 years was not found to be manifestly inadequate. The court found that the appeal was competent and that the non-parole period was a "punishment imposed or order made" under the relevant legislation. The decision of the court is final, and no further appeal is permitted.
The court considered the nature of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, and the impact of the offence on the community. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and that the non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate. The court also found that the appeal was competent and that the non-parole period was a "punishment imposed or order made" under the relevant legislation. The court dismissed the Crown's appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal.
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Australia dismissed the Crown's appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The sentence imposed on Suarez-Mejia was affirmed as appropriate, and the non-parole period of 20 years was not found to be manifestly inadequate. The court found that the appeal was competent and that the non-parole period was a "punishment imposed or order made" under the relevant legislation. The decision of the court is final, and no further appeal is permitted.
Orders
Orders of the court
CCA 186/2001: Appeal dismissed, CCA 189/2001: Application for leave 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.