R v Gouliaditis (No 2)

Case [2016] NSWDC 216


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gouliaditis (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 216
Hearing dates:22 July 2016
Date of orders: 22 July 2016
Decision date: 22 July 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence – Form 1 – Ongoing supply of prohibited drug – Possess prohibited weapon – Taser – Methylamphetamine – 1-4 Butanediol – Exceptional circumstances justifying sentence other than full time custody.
Cases Cited: EF v R [2015] NSWCCA at 36,
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Nicholas Gouliaditis
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Boulten SC - The offender

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Marsdens Law Group - Offender
File Number(s):2014/246261

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: I will begin these remarks on sentence by repeating what I said on the last occasion Mr Gouliaditis appeared before me. Drugs are terrible things and users of drugs are often, indeed almost always 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. It is for this reason - the harm the drug dealers cause - that ordinarily those who are detected dealing in drugs receive severe, even harsh sentences.

  2. This offender’s decision to become a drug dealer to supply his own habit was one made when he was himself addicted to drugs. He decided to fund his addiction by supplying drugs to others. He was not one of those drug dealers who was attracted to that criminal activity by the promise of easy money and a luxurious lifestyle. Nevertheless through his drug dealing activities he exposed others to the awful consequences of drug use and drug addiction. His behaviour was wrong and seriously so.

  3. The offender had been a recreational drug user for some time since he was attending university. In 2001 he was fined for three offences of possessing a prohibited drug. He tried to abstain but after that drifted back to using drugs a few years later. His mental health went downhill in around 2012, at that time he broke up with a partner, briefly he reunited but then realised that the relationship would not be re-established. A further stress occurred when his parents became aware of his sexuality. Although his parents are fully supportive of him now their reaction when they learnt that he was a homosexual was not a happy one. He was depressed and used drugs to deal with it. At first ice helped him to deal with his emotions, that drug made it easier for him to work and socialise, but as is always the case such improvement was highly temporary. As his usage increased he became depressed and ashamed and began to hate himself.

  4. His drug use escalated to the stage…

Continue reading R v Gouliaditis (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gouliaditis (No 2) [2016] NSWDC 216
Case
[2016] NSWDC 216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an offender who was found to be in possession of a significant quantity of methylamphetamine and a prohibited weapon, a Taser. The offender was convicted of ongoing supply of a prohibited drug and possession of a prohibited weapon. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge F.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as any exceptional circumstances that might justify a sentence other than full-time custody. The court also had to consider the offender's background, character, and the likelihood of rehabilitation, in line with the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

The court held that the offences were serious and involved significant criminality, but there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a sentence other than full-time custody. These circumstances included the offender's background, his apparent willingness to participate in a drug rehabilitation program, and the potential for an intensive corrections order to achieve the purposes of sentencing more effectively than imprisonment. The court found that the offender was suitable for an intensive corrections order, which would provide a structured and supervised environment to address the offender's drug addiction and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The court ordered that the offender be referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by way of an intensive corrections order. This order would require the offender to participate in a program designed to address the underlying causes of his criminal behaviour, with the aim of reducing the risk of reoffending and promoting rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections 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.