Director of Public Prosecutions v Patounas

[2014] VCC 1954

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
(Not) Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 12-01901

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ANTONY PATOUNAS

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHETTLE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17 October & 21 November
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 November 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Patounas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VCC 1954

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:  Trafficking in a drug of dependence
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr P. Stefanovic	OPP
For the Offender	Mr J. Desmond	Melasecca, Kelly and Zayler

HIS HONOUR: 

1Anthony Patounas, you have been convicted by a jury of one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence.  You were acquitted by a jury of one charge of possession of a drug of dependence.  The offending occurred on 17 August 2011 in Springvale. 

2the facts of your offending are that on 16 August 2011, police arrived at the premises that you were located at Unit 1/5 Rosalie Street, Springvale.  You were staying in those premises with the occupant, one Rachel Bultman.

3Police entered the house and located you and Ms Bultman together.  And in another room of the house, they found an operational clandestine laboratory.  Experts examined the scene, and evidence was given by Dr Nealy that a chemical process was being undertaken in one of the rooms in the building.  It was described as an active reflux process, vented to the outside to take the fumes from the process away from the room.

4What was occurring was methylamphetamine was being manufactured.  In the room where a number of chemicals, precursor chemicals and glass items all relevant to the manufacture of methylamphetamine.  It could be described as  relatively sophisticated, including an extensive collection of items.  In the boiling flask was a substance which was analysed to include some seven grams of pure methylamphetamine.  Throughout the room, there were items that had traces of methylamphetamine and pseudoephedrine in small quantities.

5In the safe was a quantity of methamphetamine which related to the charge of possession for which you have been acquitted, and as I understand it, that acquittal means that the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you had anything to do, or possessed that item.  You are being sentenced only in relation to you being part of a joint criminal enterprise to manufacture methylamphetamine on that day.

6You had rented a van from Dandenong hire car company Amus Proprietary Limited, that was a company operated by a witness Wendy Feng, who gave evidence at the trial.  You rented that van through a friend of yours, one Leigh Walker, and you used the van to cart the items required to manufacture methylamphetamine.  Your trial was somewhat of a three ring circus in some respects.  Witnesses who were called all lied, your friend Rachel Bultman lied about you not being involved in the cooking.  Mr Leigh Walker lied, in my view, about some of the matters he gave evidence about, and he clearly had been inside the premises where the laboratory was established. 

7In my view, all three of you, including you when you gave evidence, were involved in the trafficking enterprise.  The jury's verdict confirms that.  You gave evidence at your trial and the jury's verdict clearly indicates that they rejected beyond reasonable doubt your assertion that you were not involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.

8The jury's verdict in relation to the possession charge clearly confirms in my view the fact that the jury did not accept the evidence of Mr Walker or the evidence of Mr Bultman, or the evidence of yourself in relation to what occurred.

9You admitted a prior criminal history.  The most significant of those prior criminal appearances is on 10 March 2009, you were before the Melbourne County Court on charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence, possession of a substance, material and documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence, and two charges of possess a drug of dependence.  You were sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of two years and three months.  On the first charge, a number of other gaol terms were made concurrent or partially cumulative, so an effective term of two years and ten months was imposed but that term of imprisonment was totally suspended for a period of three years from that date.

10This offending occurs towards the end of that term of suspended term of imprisonment.  I am told that you are not going to be breached in relation to that suspended sentence.  I am not doubly punishing you for your prior matter, but it is an aggravating feature of this offending that you were on a suspended sentence when you committed this offence, and an examination of the sentencing remarks of Judge Wood, which were tendered upon your plea as exhibit 1, demonstrate that you had been involved over a period of a month or so in the preparation and manufacture of methylamphetamine.  I do not propose to go through the full circumstances, but you fall to be sentenced as a man with a prior history of manufacturing methylamphetamine.  You received what in one view is a merciful sentence in relation to that plea.  You pleaded guilty to those offences.  His Honour made reference in sentencing you to your strong family support and expressed the view that  you were unlikely to offend again in the future, given your experience in being locked up for a month prior to sentence on that case.

11Unfortunately, His Honour's prediction as to your future turned out to be untrue, or unreliable because of your offending here.  You have other prior convictions of relevance, but perhaps less relevance.  Back in 1998, you were given a bond for possession/use cannabis, and in 2000 you were before the Ringwood Magistrates' Court and again received a bond without conviction for cultivating cannabis, possessing/using cannabis, and possessing ammunition.  Those prior matters are consistent with the history that is set out by your counsel today, and by Mr Ball in his psychological report, exhibit 2 tendered upon your plea.

12You developed an addiction to cannabis, between 1986 and 2007, and moved on in 2005 to methylamphetamine or ice and you frankly acknowledged to Mr Ball that you developed a strong addiction to both those drugs.  It is against that background that you became involved in the manufacturing of methylamphetamine to which Judge Wood referred, and no doubt, against that background, that you committed the offending for which I am to sentence you. 

13You are now 44 years of age, being born on 14 September 1970.  You were born in Egypt and you came to Australia when you were a young boy of three years of age.  You attended school until the age of 15, you were apparently a very intelligent man, and you have since that time worked predominantly as a glassblower with your father and other people since the age of 15.  You enjoyed strong family support that is referred to by His Honour Judge Wood and it is demonstrated by the reference material tendered on your behalf from your niece and your sister, exhibit 3, and it is clear that you will enjoy their support when you are released from prison in the future.  I take that family support into account in sentencing you, it bears upon your prospects for rehabilitation.

14The psychologist's report of Mr Ball is relatively unexceptional.  It points out your prior drug history, which satisfies a diagnostic criteria for stimulant disorder for cannabis and other drugs.  Significantly, Mr Ball makes the following comments under his opinion heading in relation to you.  He says at p.4 of the report,

"Of concern with Mr Patounas is the rise of antisocial and narcissistic features in his personality.  He has developed resentful and competitive traits, a combination that often leads to conflict and moodiness, causing sudden changes in his feelings and behaviour.  Mr Patounas' resentment stems from his own exaggerated sense of importance and self-worth, and the lack of recognition he perceives himself to be receiving.  Underpinning his narcissism is crushingly low self-esteem and low tolerance for frustration.  He presents with a sense of grandiose self-importance and entitlement.  He may routinely overestimate his ability and accomplishments.  He perceives himself as important, superior and unique, and expects others to recognise him as such.  He may often feel cheated by the world and others, who failed to recognise his importance.  His resentment is further fuelled by the lack of lavish lifestyle, money and creature comforts he believes that he is entitled to.  These personality features have led to a cyclic state of offending as his anger and resentment of the world rises and falls."

15OFFENDER:  That's rubbish.

16You describe that as rubbish.  That is in the report tendered on your behalf by your counsel.  What I can say is that sits with the view I got of you when I observed you giving evidence.  You maintained that you were not involved in this joint enterprise.  You asserted it from the witness box and you would not contemplate or deal with the evidence that clearly indicated you were, for example, your fingerprints were found on a great number of items in the house relevant to the manufacture.

17Your personality, I think, demonstrated itself in the witness box and it is consistent with the view expressed by Mr Ball.  I take into account in your favour the fact that this took nearly three years to get on, from the time you were arrested until the time that the trial was conducted.  It took over a year for the matter to come on at committal.  You were to be tried last year, but unfortunately that could not go on because you were injured, and so you did not come on to be tried until 7 October this year, well over three years after the offending occurred.

18During that time, you had not offended, and I had received evidence from Mr Lamberti of efforts you have made of recent times to deal with your drug addiction issues.  You undertook 24 sessions with Mr Lamberti between December 2011 and June 2012, and I think he expressed it or summarised it as you making a meaningful attempt to deal with the issues you had.  There was some minor relapses into drug use, but in the main, you returned 62 of 69 clean urine samples and the questionable samples being early in the course of treatment.

19Your strong family support, as well as the evidence of Mr Lamberti gives some prospect to your future rehabilitation, provided you can stay away from methylamphetamine.

20There are, as I say, a number of aggravating features of your offending.  I have referred to your previous conviction and your suspended sentence that was operating at the time.  The offending was sophisticated.  You have displayed not the slightest bit of remorse for your conduct, and to this day maintain that you are innocent.

21Your co-accused Ms Bultman received a term of 12 months imprisonment suspended for her involvement in this, and that was dealt with in the Magistrates' Court on 18 October of 2012.  That sentence appears to me to be a merciful sentence as far as she is concerned.  She does not have the prior criminal history you have, however I will have regard to the sentence imposed on her and principles of parity in arriving at an appropriate sentence for you. 

22A light sentence for her does not mean that I am justified in imposing an inadequate sentence for you.  The law is clear.  But I will have regard to the sentence imposed on her and reduce the sentence I would otherwise impose upon you to acknowledge the sentence she received in the parity and sentencing process. 

23Clearly general deterrence is a significant sentencing factor.  This court all too often sees the pain and suffering that methamphetamine causes.  It is behind the cause of a lot of crime.  People who manufacture methylamphetamine need to know that they will go to prison.  Especially if it is manufactured for the purposes of sale.  Secondly, specific deterrence, you were not deterred by your prior involvement with the criminal justice system, with the suspended sentence you received from Judge Wood - although now well over three years ago - six years ago now, three years before this offending - did not deter you from going back into the methylamphetamine manufacturing business.

24You need to be specifically deterred from further offending, and I must express the community's denunciation for your conduct.  I have got to balance the circumstances of your offending with your personal history and antecedents.  Your counsel conceded that nothing other than a period of imprisonment was appropriate for your offending, and such a concession is clearly well-made.  I have no choice but to impose a period of imprisonment for your offending.  He suggested that time served was almost enough for the sentence imposed, and you heard me say and I still maintain that that submission is misconceived.  Your offending is too serious and your prior history is such that nothing other than a substantial term of imprisonment in my view is appropriate.  Would you stand up please?

25On the one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for four years.  I order that you serve two years and nine months of that sentence before you are eligible for parole.  I declare that 151 days not including today, of the sentence, sorry 151 days including today of the sentence I have just imposed has already been served by way of pre-sentence detention.  Are there any other orders required?  I have made the forfeiture and disposal orders.

26MR STEFANOVIC:  As Your Honour pleases, nothing further.

27HIS HONOUR:  All right, would you remove Mr Patounas, please.  All right, I'll adjourn until nine o'clock Monday morning.  Anything else Mr Desmond?

28MR DESMOND:  No, Your Honour.

29HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Monday morning, nine o'clock.

‑ ‑ ‑