R v Cardamis - [2017] NSWDC 399

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cardamis [2017] NSWDC 399
Hearing dates: 20 July, 8 September 2017
Date of orders: 08 September 2017
Decision date: 08 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of one year and one month commencing today. I order that the sentence be served by way of intensive correction in the community.

Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – Drug supply – 10.39 grams cocaine – On a Form 1 another supply of 0.75 grams cocaine and supply of 4.4 grams of MDMA (ecstasy) – Nil prior offences – Strong subjective case – Whether full time imprisonment required
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
R v Clark (NSWCCA, 15 March 1990, unreported)
Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mark Nectarios Cardamis (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms A Narayan (Crown)
Mr A Parsons (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/265537
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mark Nectarios Cardamis stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that on 3 September 2016 at Surry Hills in this State he did supply a prohibited drug namely 10.39 grams of cocaine. That is an offence contrary to section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. That maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,000 penalty units. There is no standard non-parole period. The offender asks me to take into account on a Form 1 two other offences: one of supplying a prohibited drug namely 0.75 grams of cocaine and one of supplying 4.4 grams of the drug 3,4 methylene-dioxi-methylamphetamine commonly known as ecstasy, the amount of ecstasy which the offender had in his possession, which was a trafficable amount, was 3.5 times the indictable amount of that drug.

Facts

The facts are fairly straight forward. On Saturday 3 September 2016 police were conducting patrols in the area of the Clock Hotel and the Dolphin Hotel which are on Crown Street, Surry Hills. Their surveillance included keeping watch at about 11.45pm. At that time the offender was driving a white Hyundai with his younger brother as his front seat passenger. The offender stopped his vehicle in front of the Clock Hotel where it was sighted by the police. Police then followed the offender’s vehicle as he drove along Crown Street and then into Bourke Street where he stopped it in front of the Beresford Hotel. When it was stopped outside the Beresford Hotel police observed RB enter the rear seat of the vehicle. The offender then drove around the corner, performed a U-turn and stopped again in front of the Beresford Hotel. RB then alighted from the car and she was intercepted by the police. It is agreed that while RB was in the offender’s vehicle the offender supplied to her 0.75 grams of cocaine. That is one of the matters…

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 Cardamis

Details

AGLC: R v Cardamis [2017] NSWDC 399
Case: [2017] NSWDC 399
Decision Date: 08 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cardamis involved the defendant, Cardamis, who was convicted for drug supply. Specifically, Cardamis was found with 10.39 grams of cocaine, along with 0.75 grams of cocaine and 4.4 grams of MDMA (ecstasy) on a separate form. Cardamis had no prior criminal record. The court was tasked with determining whether full-time imprisonment was necessary for this offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's drug supply activities warranted a custodial sentence or if a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate. The court considered the nature and quantity of the drugs involved, as well as Cardamis's lack of prior criminal history. Additionally, the court assessed the subjective circumstances surrounding the case to determine the appropriate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the significant quantities of drugs found on Cardamis but also recognised the defendant's clean criminal record and the absence of any aggravating factors. The court determined that while the offence was serious, it did not necessitate a full-time imprisonment sentence. Instead, the court opted for a sentence of one year and one month, to be served by way of intensive correction in the community, taking into account the defendant's lack of prior criminal history and the subjective circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the sentence be served through an intensive correction program in the community, reflecting a balanced approach that considered both the seriousness of the offence and the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of one year and one month commencing today. I order that the sentence be served by way of intensive correction in the community.

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 Cardamis [2017] NSWDC 399
Hearing dates:	20 July, 8 September 2017
Date of orders:	08 September 2017
Decision date:	08 September 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of one year and one month commencing today. I order that the sentence be served by way of intensive correction in the community.
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – Drug supply – 10.39 grams cocaine – On a Form 1 another supply of 0.75 grams cocaine and supply of 4.4 grams of MDMA (ecstasy) – Nil prior offences – Strong subjective case – Whether full time imprisonment required
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36 R v Clark (NSWCCA, 15 March 1990, unreported) Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Mark Nectarios Cardamis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms A Narayan (Crown) Mr A Parsons (Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/265537
Publication restriction:	Nil