District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Megaloudis [2013] NSWDC 302 Hearing dates: 27 September 2013 Decision date: 31 October 2013 Before: Letherbarrow SC Decision: Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of four years and three months with an effective non-parole period of two years and two months
Catchwords: CRIME - Sentencing - counterfeiting - hardship - whether exceptional circumstances - objective seriousness - deterrence - parity - concurrency - totality Legislation Cited: Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth), ss6, 9, 11, 14,
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (New South Wales), s16ACases Cited: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185; R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; R v Hinton [2002] NSWCCA 405; R v Berlinsky [2005] SASC 316; R v Nguyen [2001] WASCA 72; R v Gaw [2006] VSCA 51; DPP v Ip [2005] ACTCA 24; Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136; R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 553 at [51] - [52]; Elsobky v R [2006] NSWCCA 168 at [17] - [21]; Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
Wirth (1976) 145 SASR 291; R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510; Eken v R [2007] NSWCCA 320; Roberts v R [2007] NSWCCA 112; R v Dibb (CCA, unreported, 13 September 1991); R v Hart [1999] NSWCCA 204; R v Luong [2000] NSWCCA 139; R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533; R v Capper [2000] NSWCCA 63; R v Aller [2004] NSWCCA 378; R v Lo; R v Ouyang [2004] NSWCCA 382; R v Wood [2005] NSWCCA 233; Le v R [2006] NSWCCA 136; Bellas v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 8; R v Institoris [2002] NSWCCA 8; The Queen v Rohde and Ors (1985) 17 A Crim R 166;
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; R v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162Category: Sentence Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Nicholas Megaloudis - OffenderRepresentation: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Mr Hatzistergos - Offender
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
File Number(s): 2010/391941
Judgment
Introduction
On 17 July last, after a jury trial lasting some 5 weeks, the offender was found guilty of all 6 counts contained in the indictment presented against him.
The first count was that contrary to section 6 of the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth) ("the Act"), between about 30/6/2009 and 24/11/2010 at Sydney, the offender did make or began to make counterfeit money. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years.
The second count was that contrary to s14(1) of the Act, between about 14/8/2010 and 16/9/2010 at Sydney, the offender did give information with respect to the manner in which counterfeit money may be disposed of. The maximum penalty…
Continue reading R v Megaloudis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Megaloudis [2013] NSWDC 302
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 302
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court identified several key legal issues. First, it needed to assess the objective seriousness of the offence, taking into account the scale and sophistication of the counterfeiting operation. Second, it had to consider whether the defendant's personal circumstances amounted to exceptional hardship that warranted a reduced sentence. Third, the court needed to determine the appropriate sentence that balanced the principles of deterrence, parity, and concurrency, while also adhering to the totality principle. The court also had to consider the defendant's criminal history and prospects for rehabilitation.
In its judgment, the court first assessed the objective seriousness of the offence. It found that the counterfeiting operation was extensive, involving a large amount of counterfeit currency and multiple transactions. The court then considered the defendant's personal hardship, including his health issues and family responsibilities. While acknowledging these factors, the court found that they did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a significantly reduced sentence. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the importance of maintaining parity with similar cases. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of four years and three months, with an effective non-parole period of two years and two months, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for an appropriate punishment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of four years and three months with an effective non-parole period of two years and two months
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.