R v Kaplantzi - [2023] NSWDC 42

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kaplantzi [2023] NSWDC 42
Hearing dates: 22 February 2023
Decision date: 17 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - Supply prohibited drug - expert witnesses - departure from Code of Conduct

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2), s 25(1)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Rex (Crown)
Manuell Kaplantzi (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Ye (DPP)
Mr Maarraoui (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2020/00092887
Publication restriction: Nil

Manuell Kaplantzi, you appear for sentence today in relation to three offences.
First, supplying a prohibited drug (commonly known as MDMA) in an amount not less than the commercial quantity for that drug (Count 2). This involves a contravention of s25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years. There is a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 10 years.
Secondly, supplying a prohibited drug (cocaine) in an amount greater than the indictable, but less than the commercial, quantity for that drug (Count 3). This involves a contravention of s25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 15 years. There is no standard non-parole period.
Thirdly, supplying a prohibited drug (cannabis) in an amount greater than the indictable, but less than the commercial, quantity for that drug (Count 4). This also involves a contravention of s25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act; however, the maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years. There is no standard non-parole period.
The facts upon which you are to be sentenced are largely agreed and contained in a document entitled “Statement of Agreed Facts”. (I shall refer to and resolve the areas of dispute later in these remarks on sentence).
For my purposes this afternoon, the agreed facts may be summarised as follows.
As at November 2019, you were approximately 52 years old; and you had a son (Andrew) who was aged approximately 23 years.
In November 2019, a Police Strike Force was established to investigate the supply of prohibited drugs within the southwest metropolitan region of Sydney – which is where your son lived.
As a result of the investigations of that Strike Force, your son was “… identified as an upline supplier [of prohibited drugs] capable of selling commercial quantities of prohibited drugs at short notice”.
As at February 2020, your son had (at least) one mobile phone, which had the number …303. That phone number “… was established to facilitate the supply of cocaine and [MDMA] to persons who called the number”. The phone was used by your son to contact family members, his de facto, and customers wanting to purchase drugs. Orders were placed using code words. Your son subsequently supplied prohibited…

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 Kaplantzi

Details

AGLC: R v Kaplantzi [2023] NSWDC 42
Case: [2023] NSWDC 42
Decision Date: 17 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kaplantzi, the defendant was convicted for supplying a prohibited drug. The appeal concerned the sentence imposed, specifically the length of imprisonment and the non-parole period. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of sentencing outlined in the Code of Conduct. Additionally, the court had to assess the weight and relevance of the expert witness evidence provided during sentencing.

The court examined the sentencing principles and found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for deterrence. The court also noted the expert witness evidence provided, which was deemed relevant and appropriately considered. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years

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 Kaplantzi [2023] NSWDC 42
Hearing dates:	22 February 2023
Decision date:	17 March 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - Supply prohibited drug - expert witnesses - departure from Code of Conduct
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2), s 25(1)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Manuell Kaplantzi (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Ye (DPP) Mr Maarraoui (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2020/00092887
Publication restriction:	Nil