R v Panagakos - [2003] NSWCCA 81

Reported Decision:
138 A Crim R 538

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Panagakos [2003] NSWCCA 81

HEARING DATE(S): 27 March 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; Smart AJ at 33

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentenced quashed; in lieu thereof sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years to commence 3 August 2000 and to expire on 2 August 2010 with a non parole period of six years six months to commence on 3 August 2000 and to expire on 2 February 2007.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - application for leave to appeal against sentence - supply large commercial quantity of heroin - Form 1 offence - another offender earlier sentenced - parity - whether sentence excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, s 33(3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, No. 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES :
Regina v Bill Panagakos

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60021/03

COUNSEL: M.C. Grogan (Crown)
G.J. Stanton (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
Jack Rigg (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0019

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Dalgleish ADCJ

60021/03

STUDDERT J
SMART AJ
Tuesday 1 April 2003

REGINA v BILL PANAGAKOS

Judgment

1 STUDDERT J: The applicant, Bill Panagakos, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by his Honour Acting Judge Dalgleish on 17 July 2002. The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty to an offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of heroin . That offence was one which attracted a maximum penalty of life imprisonment under s 33(3) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The sentencing judge was also asked to take into account under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 an offence of supply a commercial quantity of cocaine.

2 The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for ten years, backdated to commence on 3 August 2000 and to expire on 2 August 2010. His Honour specified a non parole period of seven years six months, to expire on 2 February 2008.

3 The sentence was backdated to the date of the applicant’s arrest, from which time he was refused bail.

4 The applicant was one of four persons identified in a network involved in the supply of heroin and cocaine. The supply outlet was a hotel, known as the Discount Hotel in Darlinghurst Road, Kings Cross. A person named Noureddine Laa Laa was allegedly in charge of the operation. A man named Eli Geadah was employed by Laa Laa to oversee the supply of drugs to the salespersons at the hotel. It was his task to ensure that those directly engaged in the selling did not run short of drugs and it was his further task to collect the money from sales made. The applicant and a man named Tony…

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 Panagakos

Details

AGLC: R v Panagakos [2003] NSWCCA 81
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 81
Decision Date: 1 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Panagakos involved the appellant, Panagakos, who had been convicted of supplying a large commercial quantity of heroin. The appeal pertained to the sentence imposed, with Panagakos contending that it was excessive. This appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriately applied and whether it was disproportionate when compared to a co-offender who received a lesser penalty. The High Court's analysis was focused on the principles of parity and proportionality in sentencing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Panagakos was excessive given the context of the offence and the sentence of another offender involved in the same criminal activity. The court had to assess the sentencing principles applied in the lower courts and determine if there was any error in the application of those principles. Specifically, the court examined whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the circumstances of the offence, Panagakos's role, and the principle of parity with co-offenders.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of proportionality and parity in sentencing. The High Court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the nature of the offence, Panagakos's role, and the principle of parity. The court noted that the lower courts had carefully weighed the relevant factors and that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for such a serious offence. As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the sentence imposed on Panagakos, affirming the decision of the lower courts. The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality and the careful consideration of all relevant factors in sentencing, including the principle of parity with co-offenders.

Orders