R v Cantarakis - [2024] NSWDC 650

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cantarakis [2024] NSWDC 650
Hearing dates: 29 October 2024
Date of orders: 29 October 2024
Decision date: 29 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
A sentence of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Cocaine
SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — Late plea of guilty — No notable record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive Correction Order
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Objective seriousness — Consideration of an Intensive Correction Order
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Youth

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Blakeney v R [2022] NSWCCA 277
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Blair (2005) 152 A Crim R 462
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

Category: Sentence
Parties: Dimitri Cantarakis (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Pace (for the accused)
Solicitors:
Simon Joyner Lawyers (for the accused)
M Rollestone solicitor advocate for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/176830

JUDGMENT – Ex temore revised

Introduction

It needs to be stated and restated – the supply of unlawful drugs in our community causes many and different harms. There is harm done to the individual users of the drug. There is harm done to the families of those users, who have to put up with the problems created by their loved ones using the drugs. There are also significant economic harms to the community because of the often large and untaxed profits made from the sale of illicit drugs. The sale of illicit drugs often leads to other crimes being committed by people to obtain funds for drugs or as a consequence of criminals trying to get their hands on drug money.
There may be a better way, they may be suggested at the forthcoming drug summit, but as someone who was involved in the first drug summit, I am not going to hold my breath waiting. Police, in order to intercept drug supply operations, have to employ surreptitious surveillance and allow drug operations to continue in order to trace suppliers and those they supply to. On occasions they may go too far, but this case is not one of them.

Agreed Facts

A lawful police investigation was investigating a local criminal Mustajab Turi; who is…

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 Cantarakis

Details

AGLC: R v Cantarakis [2024] NSWDC 650
Case: [2024] NSWDC 650
Decision Date: 29 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cantarakis involved the defendant, Cantarakis, who was charged with drug offences related to the supply of cocaine. The matter was heard in a higher court, where the primary focus was on determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering various legal principles and mitigating factors. Cantarakis pleaded guilty to the charges, and the court was tasked with assessing the seriousness of the offence, the guidelines for sentencing, and various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the application of sentencing guidelines, the consideration of mitigating factors such as the defendant's good character and lack of prior convictions, and the potential appropriateness of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) instead of immediate imprisonment. The court needed to balance the objective seriousness of the offence against the subjective circumstances of the offender, ensuring the sentence reflected both the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court first assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, recognising the significant public health and safety concerns associated with drug supply. It then considered the defendant's good character and the lack of a notable criminal record, which were recognised as mitigating factors. The court also explored the possibility of an ICO, weighing this against the need for an immediate custodial sentence. Ultimately, the court concluded that while an ICO might be suitable for some offenders, the objective seriousness of Cantarakis's offence warranted a custodial sentence. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of one year and four months, to be served subject to an ICO.

The final orders of the court mandated that Cantarakis serve a term of imprisonment of one year and four months, with the sentence to be carried out under the conditions of an Intensive Correction Order. This decision reflects the court's balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation, while also considering the unique circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

A sentence of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Cantarakis [2024] NSWDC 650
Hearing dates:	29 October 2024
Date of orders:	29 October 2024
Decision date:	29 October 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	A sentence of imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months to be served subject to an Intensive Correction Order
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Cocaine SENTENCING — Guidelines for sentencing — Role of guidelines SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — Late plea of guilty — No notable record of previous convictions SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive Correction Order SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Deterrence — Objective seriousness — Consideration of an Intensive Correction Order SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Youth
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Blakeney v R [2022] NSWCCA 277 Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 R v Blair (2005) 152 A Crim R 462 R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3 Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Dimitri Cantarakis (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: D Pace (for the accused) Solicitors: Simon Joyner Lawyers (for the accused) M Rollestone solicitor advocate for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/176830