R v Margaronis

[2016] NSWDC 404

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Margaronis [2016] NSWDC 404
Hearing dates:	17 November 2016
Date of orders:	17 November 2016
Decision date:	17 November 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug supply
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Stefano Dennis Margaronis
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Parsons – The offender   Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
File Number(s):	2015/357706

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR:  The tale of Mr Stefano Margaronis' involvement in drugs is both a sad one and an illustration in the need to impose a sentence on him which reflects the harm that drug dealing causes.  The offender was an upright citizen.  He had been a teacher.  He was running his own personal training business.  He was doing well until he became involved in drugs.  As is commonly the case, indeed almost invariably the case, the person who starts to use drugs starts to use more and more of those drugs as time goes on, eventually reaching the stage where the person begins to supply drugs to fund his or her own habit.

2. Another sad aspect of Mr Margaronis' involvement of drugs concerns his brother.  He was a heroin addict who died at a young age as a result of complications arising from his drug use. 

3. Mr Margaronis began to use drugs at a time of depression.  His mother became ill with Parkinson's Disease.  He gave up teaching fulltime so that he could care for her and eventually she passed away.  Other family members including his brother died at around this time.  Mr Margaronis found himself, as references tendered on his behalf support, at a very low ebb.  That a person like Mr Margaronis can use drugs demonstrates the evil that they are.

4. More than most Mr Margaronis should have known about the harms drugs cause.  His brother had died.  He was a PDHPE teacher and I am sure many of his lessons to his students concerned the problems that drug use causes to the health and wellbeing of those who use drugs.  Yet despite that, Mr Margaronis not only used drugs but supplied them in circumstances I will now explain.

5. It was on 4 December last year that police noticed Mr Margaronis in a car near the Beach Road Hotel in Bondi.  As a result of their suspicions they approached him and searched him.  They found two mobile phones in his hand, they found $1,625 in his wallet, and most relevantly they found two sorts of drugs.  There were six resealable plastic bags containing cocaine totalling 4.46 grams and 22 capsules inside a purple container containing MDMA.  The total weight of that drug was 4.5 grams.

6. He was asked questions by police but refused to answer them.  In an affidavit and then sworn evidence the offender explained that he was on his way to a party, a party that involved drug use, when police stopped him.  He said that he was going to use some of the drugs and supply the rest to his friends.  He explained that in the circles in which he then mixed it was common for a person hosting a party to supply drugs to others and then when that person went to a party hosted by another person get free drugs in return.  Mr Margaronis says that that is what he intended to do.

7. The Crown suggested in cross-examination that he was indeed supplying drugs for cash.  Mr Parsons submitted that there was no evidence of any indicia of drug use, no ledgers, no empty resealable plastic bags, no scales.  The only suspicious aspect, which I raised during the course of his submissions, concerned the two mobile phones.  However, it is clear, and it is contained within the statement of facts, that both of those phones were examined by police and clearly nothing incriminating was found because otherwise I would have heard about it.

8. I am therefore prepared to sentence Mr Margaronis on the basis that his drug dealing was as he said it was.  That is not to minimise the gravity of his misconduct.

9. Drugs cause enormous harm to the people who use them and to the community generally. Mr Margaronis is a perfect illustration of that. His drug use began when he was working as a personal trainer in a gym. He damaged his knee playing soccer a little while earlier and one of the people he met at the gym suggested that steroids might help. In his recovery he began to use those drugs. Indeed, he was arrested and charged with possessing steroids and dealt with in the Local Court where he received the benefit of an order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

10. The same person who offered the offender steroids also offered him other drugs as well.  Mr Margaronis said in his affidavit that this time it was not long after he had lost his mother and his brother.  He was depressed and it was under those circumstances he began to buy cocaine and ecstasy from him.  Of course his drug use increased and it was often costing him a great deal of money.  Sometimes he would lend money to his drug supplier and the money he had in his possession when he was arrested represented repayment of such a debt by his drug supplier.

11. Consistent with what I believe to be Mr Margaronis' underlying personality, since his arrest he has achieved a remarkable turnaround.  Often offenders come before me and say that having been arrested for drug supply they have given up drug use, but Mr Margaronis has done more than simply say that. He has undergone regular urinalysis.  11 urinalysis reports were tendered to me, each showing that he was no longer using drugs.  Looking back on things, the offender explains that his arrest was a significant wakeup call and that he has decided to do what he can to turn his life around.  He appears to have been successful.

12. He has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to supplying the MDMA and he asks when I sentence him for that matter I take into account the supply of cocaine.  His plea of guilty has a utilitarian benefit to the criminal justice system and so the sentence I impose upon him will be about 25% less than it would otherwise have been.  There is also a matter on a s 166 certificate, an offence of dealing in property which is suspected to be the proceeds of crime and that relates to the money found on his possession when he was arrested.

13. The offender was not trafficking to a substantial degree and so exceptional circumstances need not be demonstrated in order for the offender to avoid a fulltime custodial sentence.  That is not to say that custodial sentences cannot be imposed on those not trafficking to a substantial degree but in my view a fulltime custodial sentence is not required in these circumstances.  The offender is a man underlying good character.  I suspect that his involvement with drugs will be very much an isolated occasion in his life and he has been other than an upright citizen.

14. He impressed me in his evidence.  He was candid in answering questions from the Crown and did not seek to minimise his criminal activity in any way.  There is substantial hope for the future.  He has good prospects for rehabilitation and I believe he is unlikely to offend again.  I have decided that a custodial sentence is required in order to reflect the harm that drug dealing such as Mr Margaronis' results in.  I have also decided that the length of that sentence is such that options and alternatives to fulltime custody are available.

15. Accordingly, I refer the offender for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an intensive corrections order.  I will adjourn the matter until 27 January 2017 for consideration as to what sentence to impose upon Mr Margaronis.

16. Mr Margaronis, you Are not out of the woods yet, you understand what I mean by that do not you?  What you have got to do is cooperate with Corrective Services, convince them that you are the sort of person who is suitable to serve your sentence in a way that does not involve you going into fulltime custody.  If you are not suitable then there is a risk that you will end up in gaol after all.  Do you understand that?

17. OFFENDER:  Yes, sir.

18. ADJOURNED TO FRIDAY 27 JANUARY 2017 FOR SENTENCE

**********

Decision last updated: 01 March 2017