A Spanish sea captain jailed for 30 years for his part in smuggling #100m worth of cocaine into a remote part of Scotland, claimed yesterday that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
The sentence imposed on 31-year-old Jose Boo Torres in February 1994 was one of the heaviest ever handed down by a Scottish court and Torres also argues that the jail term was too harsh.
Lord Weir told Torres that the sentence was intended to act as a signal to others of the folly of bringing ''murderous cargoes of misery and death'' into Scotland.
Torres, currently serving his sentence in Shotts Prison, was the sixth man convicted of being involved in the operation to bring half a tonne of cocaine ashore in a dinghy near Oldany Island, Drumbeg, 40 miles from Ullapool in January 1991.
The drugs were loaded onto a van on the first stage of a journey to London but the van was stopped on the A9 near Newtonmore by an alert off-duty policeman.
The two drugs couriers driving the van were jailed for 10 and seven years and at a later trial at the High Court in Edinburgh three Ullapool men were sentenced to a total of 55 years for their part in the operation.
Torres was caught in 1992 when his ship had to run for shelter to Halifax, Nova Scotia, in rough weather.
A seventh man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, escaped from police custody in Spain as he was about to be deported to the UK. He is alleged to be the European mastermind behind the plan to smuggle the drugs from Columbia.
Torres was represented yesterday at the Court of Criminal Appeal by Mr Andrew Hardie QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, who said there were six main issues involved in the case.
Was the evidence of a note which the jury found to be in Torres' handwriting and connecting him to one of the Ullapool men, ''Crazy Chris'' Howarth, properly admitted in evidence?
Was the evidence of forensic scientists concerning additional work undertaken by them in the course of the trial properly admitted as evidence?
If the answer to the first two questions was No, was there enough evidence to convict Torres?
Did the trial judge make a mistake in referring in his charge to the jury to events which had taken place outwith their presence?
Was Torres deprived of the right to a fair trial by a failure to present to the jury his position on the handwritten note?
Torres has consistently disputed that he was the author of the note but argues that no proper investigation was undertaken on his behalf and that his defence on this point was not put before the jury.
Torres is also arguing that, even if his appeal against conviction fails, the 30-year-sentence was excessive.
He says that although he was the captain of the Dimar-B which brought cocaine into British territorial waters, there was no proof that he had a financial interest in the vessel which was owned by a company registered in Panama.
According to Torres there was no evidence that he was responsible for organising the importation of the drugs, that he was a major player, or that he had any financial interest in the importation or that he would have derived any significant financial benefit.
He argues that his part in the operation was akin to Ullapool man Noel Hawkins, who landed the cocaine in Scotland and was sentenced to 15 years.
The hearing continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article