Director of Public Prosecutions v Koumis
[2022] VCC 150
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-21-01205
CR-21-01212
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THEODOSIS KOUMIS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE D SEXTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 November 2021; 24 November 2021; 8 February 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 February 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Koumis | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 150 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence; Negligently Dealing with the Proceeds of Crime; Possession of a Drug of Dependence
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991; Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances
Act 1981
Cases Cited:R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269; Kada v R (2017) 270 A Crim
R 197; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; Guden v R (2010) 28 VR
288.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms A. Watson | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms J. Pisasale | Slades & Parsons |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Theodosis Koumis, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing four charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment, one charge of negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, which, in the circumstances of your case, carries a maximum penalty of not more than five penalty units. You have also pleaded guilty to two related summary offences, possession of a Schedule 4 poison, which carries a maximum of 10 penalty units, and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 penalty units or three months’ imprisonment.
2You also admitted your criminal history.
Circumstances of the Offending
3The details of your offending were set out in the Summary of Prosecution document dated 3 September 2021, Exhibit 1. As confirmed by your counsel, this document contains an agreed factual basis of the offending for which you will now be sentenced. Your offending can be briefly summarised.
4On 21 April 2020, you were released from custody on parole in relation to your most recent sentence from the County Court at Melbourne on 2 May 2018, a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non‑parole period of 2 years less pre‑sentence detention, in relation to trafficking-related offending. That parole period expired on 8 June 2020. Your offending, which is the subject of these proceedings, commenced some three and a half months later, on 25 September 2020. Police had commenced an investigation into you following the execution of a warrant under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 on 14 August 2020 at your home in Fisher Street in Stawell, where a small amount of heroin and cannabis was located, but you were not then charged. At the time you were 73 years of age and residing at this property in Stawell with Ms Krystie Sell, then aged 23.
5On 25 September 2020, both you and Ms Sell were arrested at the Stawell address, and you were subsequently interviewed at Stawell Police Station. Afterwards, you were placed into a cell with a police covert operative, who asked if you could sell him some heroin or methylamphetamine. As a result of those conversations, you subsequently sold the covert operative one gram of methylamphetamine, which was analysed to have a purity of 80 per cent, for $700.
6Later, on 2 October 2020, you again sold the operative one gram of methylamphetamine at 80 per cent purity for $700. At this time, the operative asked if he could buy an increased quantity of methylamphetamine, to which you agreed.
7On 16 October 2020, you sold three and a half grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 82 per cent, and one gram of heroin with a purity of 11 per cent, to the operative for $2,000. In discussions with the operative, further purchases were mentioned.
8In subsequent discussions with the operative on 21 October 2020, you agreed to sell the operative a “full bag” of methylamphetamine for $11,500, and one gram of cocaine for $450. In later discussions on 23 October 2020, the agreement was revised to three-quarters of an ounce of methylamphetamine, a gram of cocaine and a gram of heroin for a revised total price of $9,200. You asked the operative to come to your house for the transaction to take place, and to wait in his car outside. As the transaction was about to occur, you were arrested by police. You were found to have in your possession quantities of methylamphetamine and cocaine.
9Subsequent police searches of your premises located quantities of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, a small quantity of cannabis seeds (Charge 5 – possession of a drug of dependence), 18 Cephalexin tablets (Summary Charge 22 – possession of a poison), a quantity of $890 in cash (Charge 4 – negligently dealing with proceeds of crime), and various other items connected with trafficking activities.
10The three trafficking charges on the indictment relate to the substances either sold to the police operative or seized upon search. Charge 1, trafficking methylamphetamine between 25 September and 23 October 2020, involves 27.5 grams of methylamphetamine. Charge 2, trafficking heroin between 16 October and 23 October 2020, relates to 4.2 grams of heroin. Charge 3, trafficking cocaine between 21 October and 23 October 2020, relates to 3.3 grams of cocaine.
11
Having been arrested, interviewed and remanded in custody on 23 October 2020, you were subsequently bailed from the Horsham Magistrates’ Court on
1 December 2020. You appeared at a Committal Mention on 20 January 2021 and the matter was adjourned to 17 March 2021, with your bail being extended.
12Whilst subject to that bail, you committed the offence of trafficking in methylamphetamine on 18 February 2021, Charge 6 on the indictment, and the related summary offence of offending whilst on bail. On 18 February 2021, following a report of erratic driving, you were pulled over by police. A subsequent search of your vehicle revealed a quantity of 27.6 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 83 per cent secreted in the vehicle.
Nature and Gravity of the Offending
13Your offending must in my view be considered as very serious offending. In particular, the gravity of the crime of trafficking in a drug of dependence is reflected in the statutory maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. More broadly, this pernicious activity has wrought catastrophic consequences on the community. Factors of relevance to an assessment as to the gravity of trafficking in particular include the quantity and weight of drugs trafficked, the duration, intensity, volume, frequency and regularity of the trafficking conduct.[1] I agree with the prosecution that the trafficking charges on the indictment, Charges 1, 2 3 and 6, particularly Charge 1 which relates to trafficking in methylamphetamine, represent serious examples of trafficking in a drug of dependence. With regards to the trafficking in the period before your initial arrest, Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the indictment, this offending occurred over a period of just under one month, and involved multiple contacts with the covert police operative, and three transactions being successful, with a fourth, larger transaction, being agreed to but not completed due to your arrest. The quantities trafficked by you, whilst initially small, increased over time. The sales of the methylamphetamine to the covert operative on 25 September 2020 and 2 October 2020 involved one gram of methylamphetamine. A few weeks later on 16 October 2020, you sold three and a half grams of methylamphetamine to the operative. Subsequently on 23 October 2020, you agreed with the operative to sell a considerably larger quantity, a three-quarter ounce of methylamphetamine, one gram of cocaine and one gram of heroin for a price of $9,200. As I have said, you were arrested by police before this transaction was completed and found to have in your possession quantities of methylamphetamine and cocaine. The total methylamphetamine seized or sold is approximately nine times the traffickable quantity (three grams) (Charge 1). The quantity of heroin referable to Charge 2 on the indictment, trafficking, 4.2 grams, also exceeds the traffickable quantity. Likewise, the quantity of cocaine referable to Charge 3 on the indictment, 3.3 grams, also exceeds the traffickable quantity. In relation to the trafficking activity prior to your initial arrest on 23 October 2020, there is no evidence that you were simply a subservient actor, trafficking at someone else’s behest. All dealings with the covert operative were with you directly, including the negotiation of price and the location for each transaction. Clearly this was not isolated conduct on your part. There was a degree of organisation and persistence associated with your trafficking activity. Collectively, therefore, Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the indictment represent serious examples of trafficking, particularly Charge 1 given the higher quantities involved.
[1]R v Nguyen [2008] VSCA 235 at [61], per Dodds-Streeton JA.
14I accept in relation to Charge 6 on the indictment, that the circumstances of this trafficking conduct were distinct from the earlier charges. You were intercepted by police whilst driving through Ararat towards Stawell on 18 February 2021, and a search of your vehicle revealed a zip lock bag wedged between the battery and the battery clamp in the vehicle, containing 27.6 grams of methylamphetamine. I accept that your trafficking conduct on this occasion could be equated to that of a courier, moving the drugs from one location to another on one distinct occasion. Nevertheless, the quantity of the methylamphetamine on this day far exceeds the traffickable quantity of three grams and must in my view also be viewed as a significant example of the crime of trafficking in methylamphetamine.
Level of Culpability and Responsibility for the Offending
15In all the circumstances, I regard your culpability for this offending to be high. You have a significant and relevant criminal history with regards to trafficking in illicit substances, which has involved you serving significant terms of imprisonment. These sanctions clearly have not deterred you from again involving yourself in this serious criminality. You must have known just how serious and consequential this type of activity was. That you would again involve yourself in this pernicious activity, so soon after completing a parole period for the same type of conduct, in my view very much accentuates your moral culpability for the current offending. Furthermore, there is nothing in any of the material provided on your behalf to indicate that your moral culpability is reduced due to any mental impairment, pursuant to the well-known Verdins[2] principles. Given the ever-increasing financial amounts involved in your trafficking activity, it is impossible in my view to ignore the reality that there must have been a financial motivation to your offending. However, as I have previously stated with regards to my ruling at the Determination Hearing stage in the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court on 8 February 2022, I accept that you were drug-dependent at the time of your offending, and that this dependency contributed to your offending. Whilst this in no way excuses your behaviour, it contextualises your offending, as it occurred in the midst of what appears to be a relatively longstanding dependency, leading you to become involved in what could be described as a lifestyle of drug use and associated antisocial behaviour, including the sale of illicit drugs. On this issue, I have had regard to the opinions of psychologist Patrick Newton, contained in his report dated 2 September 2021, Exhibit B at your Determination Hearing, supplemented by the evidence of Mr Newton before me on 24 November 2021. Mr Newton described your drug use from the early 2000s and your difficulties settling back into the community after receiving sentences of imprisonment, precipitating a descent into considerably heavier drug use, leading you to be disowned by your family, leading you to spend the majority of the past 14 years in custodial settings, with rapid relapses to drug abuse following your release from each period of incarceration. According to Mr Newton, your drug use became particularly intense following your mother’s death in 2017 and the family conflict that ensued.[3] You informed Mr Newton that your current offending, like most of your prior offending, had occurred in the context of your drug use, and that after your most recent release from jail you had relapsed to drug use very quickly.[4] In evidence before me on 24 November 2021, Mr Newton opined that your drug dependency was a significant contributor to your current offending. It brought you into contact with the drug using community, placing you in an environment where drug use is commonplace and normalised, a place where the mores of that community are internalised, a place where you had a market to whom you could provide your drugs and from whom you could obtain drugs. According to Mr Newton, one of the motivators for your drug selling was to have funds to continue to finance your own drug use, or at least have access to a supply of drugs that you could use for yourself, notwithstanding what you were selling on to others.[5] As I have said, these motivations do not in any way excuse your serious criminal conduct. However, they place you in a different category to that of an individual simply trafficking in drugs for pure profit and commercial gain.
[2] R v Verdins & Ors (2007) 16 VR 269.
[3]Psychological Report of Mr Patrick Newton dated 2 September 2021, at pg. 5.
[4]Ibid at [30].
[5]Transcript at pg. 24, Line 5-22.
16I also accept that your moral culpability is moderated to some degree by virtue of the principles applicable to offending involving police covert operatives purchasing drugs of dependence from you.[6] You were approached by the covert operative whilst in police cells following the initial apprehension on 14 August 2020, and it was the covert operative who first asked to purchase drugs from you. However, inferentially you were already trafficking in drugs of dependence at around this time, given your subsequent communications to the covert operative during your dealings with them. Moreover, clearly you were a willing participant in these activities. Nevertheless, some moderation in your level of culpability is warranted.
[6]Kada v R (2017) 270 A Crim R 197; [2017] VSCA 339 at [72].
17Your offending with regards to Charge 6 on the indictment, trafficking in methylamphetamine on 18 February 2021, occurred whilst you were subject to a grant of bail with regards to the earlier offending (Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the indictment). In relation to that offending, you had been arrested on 23 October 2020 and later bailed on 1 December 2020. You appeared at a Committal Mention at the Magistrates’ Court on 20 January 2021 where the proceeding was adjourned to 17 March 2021 and your bail was extended. Just a few short weeks later, you were again trafficking in methylamphetamine on 18 February 2021. You must surely have known the gravity of your predicament and your obligations not to reoffend. That you would again engage in such serious criminality in these circumstances, in my view, elevates your moral culpability with regards to Charge 6 in particular on the indictment.
Personal History
18Your personal history was set out in the document tendered at your Determination Hearing on 24 November 2021, Exhibit C, and also referred to by Mr Newton in his psychological report. You are now 74 years of age. Originally from Cyprus, you came to Australia in 1954 with your parents. You are the fourth born of five brothers and three sisters. You completed your education at Sunshine High School and Footscray Tech where you studied mechanical engineering. You married in the 1970s and raised four children and six grandchildren. You primarily worked as a floor tiler with your father at a business run by your father, Regina Terrazzo Tiles. You subsequently took over that business. Your marriage was apparently a positive one for more than 30 years but ran into problems when you were aged about 55 and developed a form of facial paralysis known as Bell’s Palsy. You found yourself unable to work, and the bills began to mount up, causing marital conflict. You have instructed that due to these financial struggles, you commenced using drugs and then selling drugs, leading to your inevitable involvement in the criminal justice system. The problems in your marriage continued to deepen, with you and your wife separating and ultimately divorcing in 2011, following 40 years of marriage. You have apparently retained little to no assets following your divorce, which has added to your financial difficulties. In 2016, you received funds from a Family Court settlement though and used these funds to purchase your house in Fisher Street, Stawell, which you still own.
19You have a considerable and concerning criminal history with regards to trafficking offences. You have spent much of the past 14 years in jail. On 30 May 2007 at the Melbourne County Court in relation to charges of trafficking a commercial quantity of heroin and trafficking amphetamine, you received a total effective sentence of 7 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years and
6 months. In March 2013, you were again dealt with for multiple charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence. You received a total effective sentence of
2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, 12 months of which was suspended for 3 years. That suspended sentence was activated following further drug related offending in April 2015. Finally, in the Melbourne County Court on 2 May 2018, in relation to charges of trafficking methylamphetamine and cannabis, and negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, you received a total effective sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 2 years, this sentence being imposed on appeal from an earlier decision of the Horsham Magistrates’ Court.20As I have already stated, your drug use apparently escalated following the passing of your mother in March 2017. Around this time, you began an “on again off again” relationship with Ms Jasmin Martion, a woman considerably younger than you. According to Mr Newton, your relationships since leaving your marriage have been unstable and volatile, and that when not in custody you have engaged in various short-term liaisons with others within the drug using subculture. Indeed, you informed Mr Newton that with regards to Ms Martion, your mutual drug use had been a central component of this relationship and you had each reinforced the other’s use of illicit substances.
21You have also instructed that your ever-increasing descent into drug use and the drug using subculture occurred in the context of family conflict following the division of your mother’s Estate after her passing in 2017. Indeed, it seems that for a variety of reasons with regards to your life circumstances, your dysfunctional responses to life’s challenges have brought you further and further into contact with the drug using subculture, where you have immersed yourself with others in like situations. You informed Mr Newton that upon your release on parole from your last sentence of imprisonment, you tried to get in touch with your family and they did not want to know you. You indicated that “All I had left in my life was drugs, so I started using again.”[7]
[7] Psychological Report of Mr Patrick Newton at [30].
Mitigatory Factors
22The Sentencing Act1991 requires me to have regard to various factors when formulating an appropriate sentence in your case. In addition to those already mentioned, as appropriately highlighted by your counsel, there are a number of mitigatory factors relevant to sentencing in your case.
23As accepted by the prosecution, your plea of guilty was entered at the earliest stage in proceedings, given the chronology in this matter. You indicated a plea of guilty to all matters on the indictment on 1 June 2021, but the Magistrates’ Court had been advised of the resolution of this matter prior to a committal mention on 14 April 2021. As a result of your early plea of guilty, contested proceedings with witness cross-examination has been avoided, and the community has been spared the costs and delays associated with such contested proceedings. Your plea of guilty in these circumstances reflects your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and demonstrates your acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, your plea of guilty has a significant utilitarian benefit. Significantly, you entered your plea in the midst of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Given the current unprecedented challenges to the administration of criminal justice in this State due the scourge of COVID-19, and the consequential delays to criminal trials in this State, your plea of guilty has a significantly enhanced utilitarian benefit, having regard to the significant backlog of cases currently before the Courts. As has been recently emphasised, the courts must encourage those who are guilty to so plead, and such encouragement must come from an “actual and palpable” amelioration of sentence.[8]
[8]Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169 at [35].
24I am satisfied that, to a degree, a further mitigatory allowance is warranted on the basis of your remorse. Your early plea of guilty is of course capable of evidencing such sentiments on your part. As I previously noted at your Determination Hearing, based upon the Case Management Assessment Report of Ms Chloe Reese dated 21 October 2021, Exhibit 3 in this hearing, you clearly have some issues with regards to insight, the gravity of your role in this offending, and the impacts upon the community of your offending. According to Patrick Newton, you did express “some remorse for (your) conduct, saying, ‘I want to apologise for my crimes.’”[9] However, according to Mr Newton, you could not elaborate on the reasons for your remorse or the likely effects of your conduct upon society more broadly.[10] Mr Newton did note that you impressed as a concrete thinker and found it difficult to discuss your emotions. It is possible, therefore, that your inability to articulate fully your remorse may be due to your psychological makeup. However, given your considerable criminal history for drug trafficking and the nature and gravity of your current offending, it is of some concern that you have not been able to be more fulsome in this regard. Nevertheless, I have made a modest mitigatory allowance on the issue of remorse.
[9] Psychological Report of Mr Patrick Newton at [31].
[10]Ibid.
25At the age of 74, you are obviously fairly advanced in years, and it is clear to me that you are in ill health. You suffer from high blood pressure, high cholesterol, prostate enlargement and reduced hearing and vision. You also have
significant dental issues. You have recently lost a tooth whilst in custody. According to Mr Newton, you have a range of symptoms consistent with mild depression and anxiety. You have particularly intense concerns about your
health in the custodial setting, and you feel that the treatment you have been receiving whilst in custody is inadequate and you are pessimistic regarding your prospects for improvement.[11] You have been in custody within the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic. As is now well known, the custodial setting has
been significantly impacted by the pandemic. To varying degrees, given the unpredictable nature of the pandemic, there have been significant restrictions in the custodial setting with regards to lockdowns, prison visits, access to employment, access to programs, services and therapies. Quarantiningand isolation have become features of the custodial setting. All prisoners have had to live with the ongoing stress and anxiety associated with the risks should COVID-19 enter the custodial environment, with its compromised demographic. I accept that, given your age and physical ailments, this has likely caused added anxiety to you in the custodial setting, warranting a mitigatory allowance. Furthermore, it is a sad reality that any sentence of imprisonment imposed will represent a significant proportion of your life given your advanced age, a matter which must be borne in mind in the formulation of an appropriate sentence in your case.[11]Ibid at [32] – [33].
26There have necessarily been delays associated with the finalisation of your case. Following the resolution of this matter, summary jurisdiction was refused by the Magistrates’ Court on 9 June 2021 and you were committed to the County Court for plea. Subsequent to your committal, you indicated a wish to enter the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court. At a Directions Hearing before me on 16 September 2021, I adjourned the matter into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court for a Determination Hearing. There followed a number of hearings before me in November, before the Determination Hearing was finalised on 8 February 2022, with a finding that you were not suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. I accept that these delays have caused you anxieties, as I have observed your demeanour during these hearings. Particularly in the context of COVID-19 and the other matters to which I have referred, I accept that this matter has been hanging over your head for some time, which has no doubt exacerbated your depression and anxiety as you await sentencing.
27You are a United Kingdom citizen and hold a permanent resident visa in Australia. If you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment, you will be at risk of deportation and as the prosecution accepts, the risk of such an outcome will make imprisonment more onerous for you given the attendant anxieties, and in accordance with the principles articulated in Guden,[12] a mitigatory allowance is warranted.
[12]Guden v R (2010) 28 VR 288.
28I turn now to the issue of your prospects for rehabilitation. Whilst I am not as pessimistic as the prosecution, who have submitted that you have “exceptionally low prospects of rehabilitation”, in my view your prospects must be viewed as guarded to say the least. You have an extensive and relevant criminal history. Your current offending began some three months after the end of your last parole period. Despite the seriousness of the offending captured by Charges 1, 2 and 3 on the indictment, you offended subsequently whilst on bail. It is noteworthy that your drug rehabilitation activities over the past 14 years have been extremely modest. According to Mr Newton:
“It is most regrettable that he has made so little use of his opportunities for change and has persisted with so little rehabilitation or treatment over the years. Indeed, a review of his history indicates that it has only been in the context of incarceration that he has been able to sustain abstinence.”[13]
[13]Psychological Report of Mr Patrick Newton at [43].
29In evidence before me on 24 November 2021, Mr Newton referred to your prognosis as being “very guarded”.[14] Furthermore, Mr Newton noted your quite limited intrinsic motivation for change notwithstanding your previous experiences with drug addiction and adverse consequences in the form of an extensive criminal history. He described your motivation to change as present, “but that motivation is apt to wax and wane depending upon a range of factors in Mr Koumis’s life.”[15] However, your willingness to embark upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order and your persistence in the face of indications from the Court over multiple hearings that such an outcome was unlikely, in my view does demonstrate some determination on your part to rehabilitate. As evidenced from the documents tendered at your Further Determination Hearing on 8 February 2022,[16] you have engaged in courses whilst in custody, and of particular relevance, you completed alcohol and drug programs of some duration through Caraniche in 2018 in the custodial setting. Whilst you clearly have very limited supports in the community, you retain the long-term property in Stawell. For the purposes of your application to enter the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, I received evidence from Mr Stephen Byrnes with regards to the availability of alternate accommodation should you receive a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, providing some evidence in my view of more broader support in the community. Your prospects of rehabilitation, given all of these circumstances, must be seen as quite guarded, though in my view you are not without redemptive hope, provided you receive appropriate supervision and support in the community upon your release from prison, building upon your abstinence whilst in custody. Indeed, such sentiments were articulated in the conclusion to Mr Newton’s report.[17]
[14]Transcript at pg. 13, Line 27.
[15]Transcript at pg. 23, Line 30.
[16]Letter from Sharrome Jones of Caraniche dated 4 February 2022 (Exhibit D); Certificate of completion from Anglicare Victoria dated June 2021 (Exhibit E).
[17]Psychological Report of Mr Patrick Newton at [46].
30Whilst appreciating that current sentencing practices are but one factor to be taken into account in the formulation of an appropriate sentence, and are not a
controlling factor, nor do they set a numerical limit on the upper and lower limits of the appropriate sentence in any particular case, I have nevertheless
considered the issue of current sentencing practices for the offences for which you have pleaded guilty. Clearly, courts have viewed serious trafficking such as yours as warranting significant sanctions, in the form of significant terms of imprisonment.
Sentencing Purposes and Principles
31Due to the pernicious and pervasive nature of drug trafficking in particular, general deterrence is a prominent sentencing purpose in your case. Other like-minded individuals must know that engaging in such serious criminality will attract significant punishment. Due to your concerning and relevant criminal history, and in light of your difficulties with insight, in my view specific deterrence also looms large as an applicable sentencing purpose. Through any sentence, your conduct must be denounced and given the nature and gravity of your offending, the community must be protected. Having regard to my previous comments with regards to your prospects of rehabilitation, any sentence must also, to the extent appropriate, facilitate your rehabilitation.
32In formulating an appropriate sentence in your case, I have had regard to the principles of concurrency, cumulation, and totality. Charge 1 on the indictment, trafficking in methylamphetamine within a one-month period, is the most serious offence given the quantities and transactions involved. The trafficking with regards to heroin and cocaine, Charges 2 and 3 on the indictment, occurred within this same one-month period, and involved substantially less quantities. However, the trafficking captured by Charge 6 on the indictment, trafficking in methylamphetamine on 18 February 2021, was committed whilst on bail, and given the circumstances of that offending including the quantity of the methylamphetamine involved, a degree of cumulation is warranted, particularly given the presumption of cumulation for offences committed on bail contained in the Sentencing Act 1991. Of course, in formulating an appropriate sentence, I have had regard to the overarching principle of totality, and the need not to impose a crushing sentence.
Sentence to be Imposed
33Mr Koumis, in relation to all of the charges you are sentenced as follows.
34On Charge 1, trafficking methylamphetamine, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
35On Charge 2, trafficking in heroin, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
36On Charge 3, trafficking in cocaine, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
37On Charge 4, negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.
38On Charge 5, possession of cannabis, in a small quantity, you are convicted and fined the sum of $150.
39On Charge 6, trafficking in methylamphetamine, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
40On the related summary offence of possession of a Schedule 4 poison, namely cephalexin, you are convicted and fined the sum of $200.
41On the related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 month’s imprisonment.
42I order that 1 month on Charge 2, 1 month on Charge 3, and 10 months on Charge 6, be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and upon each other, making a total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. I order that you serve a period of 2 years and 6 months before becoming eligible for parole.
43Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare a period of 404 days has been served by way of pre‑sentence detention, and this period is to be administratively deducted from your sentence.
44Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty but been found guilty at trial, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years and 2 months.
45I make the forfeiture order in relation to all items listed in the schedule to the application, that application not being opposed by you.
46I make the pecuniary penalty order in the sum of $2,510, that application also not being opposed by you.
47Firstly, turning to you, Ms Pisasale, are there any ambiguities with regards to the sentence or has anything been missed from your perspective?
48MS PISASALE: Not from my perspective, Your Honour.
49HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Watson, anything to raise with regards to maths, calculations, logistics, procedure? Have I covered everything?
50MS WATSON: No, thank you. I think you've covered it all, Your Honour, and my maths is adding up.
51HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will just sign those two orders now. Thanks, if you can adjourn the Court please.
52COUNSEL: As Your Honour pleases.
- - -
0
5
0