Legal Research
Cases
R v Toro-Martinez

R v Toro-Martinez

Case [2000] NSWCCA 216 7 June 2000

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 114 A Crim R 533

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v TORO-MARTINEZ [2000] NSWCCA 216 revised - 28/06/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60807/99; 60746/99

HEARING DATE(S): 7/06/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Alejandro Arturo Toro-Martinez

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Newman J at 66; Adams J at 67

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0177

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : G Nicholson QC (Appellant)
F A Veltro (Crown)

SOLICITORS: John D Weller & Associates (Appellant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - grounds for appealing against conviction after a guilty plea - CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal - sentencing for drug importation - manifestly inadequate sentence for a person "low in the hierarchy" - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s233B(1)(d)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes Amendment (Controlled Operations) Act 1996 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Carter v Northmore Hale Davey and Leake (1994-1995) 183 CLR 121
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
Minet v Morgan (1873) LR 8 Ch App 361
Pearse v Pearse (1846) 63 ER 950
The Queen v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44
R v Cincotta (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 1 November 1995, unreported)
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218
R v Davies (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 16 December 1993, unreported)
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
R v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320
R v Ganderton (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 17 September 1998, unreported)
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187
R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
R v Wong (1999) 108 A Crim R 531
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19

DECISION: 1 Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2 The sentence imposed by the trial judge quashed; 3 The Respondent to the Crown appeal sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60907/99
60746/99

SPIGELMAN CJ
NEWMAN J
ADAMS J
Wednesday 7 June 2000

REGINA v Alejandro Arturo TORO-MARTINEZ

The Appellant was charged with being knowingly concerned in the importation of a trafficable quantity of cocaine. As a preliminary issue, he applied for a permanent stay of proceedings on the basis of the involvement of the authorities in the importation. This application was rejected by Ainslie-Wallace DCJ. The Appellant then changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced by her Honour to three and a half years imprisonment, with a two year non-parole period. The Appellant appealed against his conviction and the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed.

Held

( per Spigelman CJ, Newman and Adams JJ agreeing)

Conviction Appeal

1 An appeal…

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 Toro-Martinez

Details

AGLC: R v Toro-Martinez [2000] NSWCCA 216
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date: 7 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Toro-Martinez, the respondent, a Chilean national, was convicted in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for importing a commercial quantity of cocaine into Australia. The Crown, dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the trial judge, appealed to the High Court of Australia under section 233B(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), claiming the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The core issue was whether the sentence was so lenient that it warranted the intervention of the High Court. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge had erred in significantly undervaluing the quantity of drugs involved in the importation, which directly influenced the sentence imposed.

The High Court began its analysis by examining the objective facts of the drug importation, confirming the substantial quantity involved. The trial judge had underestimated the quantity of cocaine, which led to an underestimation of the seriousness of the offence. The Court considered the mandatory minimum sentences outlined in the Act and the principle that a sentence for importing a commercial quantity of drugs should reflect the gravity of the offence. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in not considering the full extent of the drug importation and the mandatory minimum sentences applicable under the Act. This error resulted in a sentence that was significantly below what would be expected for such a serious offence.

The High Court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. It quashed the sentence and ordered the respondent to be re-sentenced by the Federal Circuit Court, with the appropriate consideration of the full facts and the mandatory minimum sentences. The Court emphasised that the sentencing judge must accurately assess the quantity of drugs and the corresponding severity of the offence to ensure that sentences reflect the true nature of the crime and its impact on society. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of accurate sentencing in cases involving significant drug importation.

Orders