R v Gouliaditis

[2015] NSWDC 383

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Gouliaditis [2015] NSWDC 383
Hearing dates:	1 October 2015
Date of orders:	01 October 2015
Decision date:	01 October 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Adjourned under s 11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Form 1 – Supply on an ongoing basis – methyl amphetamine – 1,4-Butanediol – Trafficking to a substantial degree – Proceeds of crime – Possession of a prohibited weapon - Taser
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Nicholas Gouliaditis
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Boulten SC & Mr J Tunks - Offender   Solicitors: NSW Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Marsdens Law Group - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/246261

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Drugs are terrible things, and users of drugs are often, when they are using drugs, terrible people. They lie, they cheat and they deceive as they pursue their desperate need to obtain drugs. The people who are responsible for much of this misery are drug dealers, such as the offender who appears for sentence today.

2. Nicholaos Gouliaditis is however, a very different man today than he was when he was supplying drugs. No longer under the addiction of drugs, he is no longer a person who lies, cheats and deceives, and no longer a person who funds a drug habit through dealing in drugs. It is my job to sentence the offender for what he has done, taking into account the person that he is today.

3. The offender’s experience in attending fulltime residential rehabilitation and his experience of seeing others like him, whose lives are being destroyed by drugs, has made him realise how he contributed to those terrible circumstances. The community, parliament and judges regard drug dealing as seriously as we do because it does destroy lives, the lives of addicts and the lives of their families and friends.

4. The offender has pleaded guilty to two offences. The first is one of supplying methylamphetamine and butanediol on an ongoing basis. He asks when I sentence him for that offence that I take into account five other matters on a Form 1,( which has been amended many times during today’s proceedings). Those five matters include an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, resisting arrest, possession of methylamphetamine, possession of 1,4-Butanediol, and dealing with the proceeds of crime being related to $1,145 found after his arrest.

5. The second matter to which he has pleaded guilty is possession of a prohibited weapon, namely a TASER, without being authorised to do so by permit.

6. The seriousness with which those offences are considered is easily demonstrated by consideration of the maximum penalties, 20 years for the ongoing drug supply matter, and 14 years with a standard non‑parole period of three years for the possess prohibited weapon matter. Of course, I have taken into account the maximum penalties and the standard non‑parole period for the prohibited weapon matter in determining the appropriate sentence to impose upon the offender.

7. Mr Boulten, who appears for the offender, concedes his client was trafficking to a substantial degree. He therefore embarked upon the process of submitting to me that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the offender being sentenced to other than fulltime custody. He first referred to the offender’s motive for committing his offences. This was not a case where the offender was doing this to make money. Certainly he was getting a financial benefit in that he was funding his own drug habit, but it is not a case where he was lured by the ease with which money can be made from drug supply so that he could spend money on luxuries of life.

8. The next matter Mr Boulten relied on was the psychiatric disorder from which his client suffered at the time his drug use escalated leading to him becoming a drug supplier. At that time the offender was going through a number of challenges in his life. He had recently broken up with a partner. He had revealed his sexuality to his family, which at least initially did not go well, and he had formed a new relationship with another partner who was a drug user himself.

9. Mr Boulten next said that the offender’s rehabilitation, which was substantial, was another factor to be considered when deciding whether there are exceptional circumstances.

10. There was another matter dealt with which Mr Boulten relied on which it is inappropriate for me to mention.

11. Then there was quasi custody of 11 months in two residential rehabilitation programs, his plea of guilty, a particular vulnerability in gaol and the loss of a career, which the offender loved and was good at.

12. The Crown submitted that nothing less than fulltime custody was appropriate. Quite accurately the Crown pointed to community concern with drugs in the community and particular with the drug ice.

13. Mr Boulten made a submission that one sentencing option which may be appropriate would be to adjourn this matter under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The offender has only recently been released from fulltime rehabilitation. Although he has apparently done exceptionally well and he in fact has done all which he could do to rehabilitate himself, there is some uncertainty as to whether that rehabilitation will continue now that he is no longer under the highly structured program at William Booth House. It was Mr Boulten’s submission that, if it was going to make a difference between fulltime custody and something else, then it would be appropriate for the matter to be adjourned for a period to allow Mr Gouliaditis to demonstrate what he will be doing with his life, to demonstrate that he can remain drug free, and to demonstrate that he is unlikely to reoffend.

14. The Crown’s submission was clear, the Crown said that no matter what rehabilitation was achieved by the offender, he had to go to gaol fulltime.

15. I am not prepared to say that fulltime custody is required today. Although the offender’s crimes were serious indeed and although he has been himself responsible for harming the community in a significant way, there are a number of factors which have made me pause when I consider whether fulltime custody is required. It may be that after the period of adjournment I will allow, that the offender ultimately does receive a fulltime custodial sentence, but the period of adjournment will allow me to determine how long that period of custody will be and the extent to which special circumstances, if any, should allow a variation of the ratio of non‑parole period to head sentence. It may be that after the period of adjournment, the offender comes back with evidence of a kind that would persuade me that fulltime custody is not required because this case is exceptional.

16. Whether it is truly exceptional or not, in my view, remains to be seen but I consider it appropriate to give the offender the opportunity of proving, if he can, that his rehabilitation is long lasting and that he can give up drugs whilst in the community, for more than a little over a month as he has so far.

17. So I will adjourn the proceedings under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, for a substantial period of time. I will grant him bail. The conditions of that bail are as follows.

• He is to be supervised by the Probation and Parole Service.

• He is to use no illegal drugs whatsoever and, I know it should not be necessary to say this but I will, that includes the drug cannabis.

• In order to demonstrate that he is not using drugs, he is to undergo regular and random urinalysis as directed by the Probation and Parole Service.

• In addition, he is, at his own expense, to undergo fortnightly urinalysis in order to prove that he is not using drugs.

• He is to notify the officer in‑charge who is present in court today, of his address and notify him of any change in that residential address within 24 hours of having moved.

• He is to report to the Sutherland Office of the Probation and Parole Service within seven days.

18. I also order Pre Sentence Report

19. ADJOURNED FOR FURTHER SENTENCE TO FRIDAY 29 JULY 2016

**********

Amendments

21 July 2016 - Paragraph 10 corrected

Decision last updated: 21 July 2016