R v Pantaleo - [2018] NSWDC 294

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pantaleo [2018] NSWDC 294
Hearing dates: 20 April 2018
Date of orders: 28 May 2018
Decision date: 28 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
In respect of the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for six years commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2022. For the offence of trafficking a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for two years and three months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 July 2018. In respect of the offence of possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and six months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 October 2017. I fix a non-parole period of three years and eight months expiring on 13 December 2019.

Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – importing commercial quantity of border controlled drug, trafficking marketable quantity of border controlled drug, possessing marketable quantity of border controlled drug – methamphetamine and cocaine
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Code Act 1995
Cases Cited: R v Okosi [2017] NSWDC 400
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Victor Daniel Pantaleo (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Barrow (Crown)
Mr G James QC with Mr E James (Offender)
Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Dorian Kratsas, Law Company Proprietary Limited (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/116029;2016/164039;2016/253323
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Victor Daniel Pantaleo stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to three offences contrary to the law of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The first offence is one contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence may be shortly described as importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug namely methamphetamine. That offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and/or a fine of 7,500 penalty units. The commercial quantity of methamphetamine is 750 grams. The total amount of pure methamphetamine actually imported was 855.3 grams. It can be seen, accordingly, that the amount imported only marginally exceeded the base for commercial quantities of methamphetamine. I say that because methamphetamine is often imported in large amounts, kilos, tens of kilos and sometimes in tonnes.
The second offence to which the offender pleaded guilty is trafficking in a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine. That carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. The methamphetamine in question was never seized or tested and the Crown can only give an estimate. The Crown’s estimate is 685 grams of methamphetamine. The marketable quantity of methamphetamine is 2 grams. The commercial quantity of methamphetamine is 750 grams. If one were to accept at face value the Crown’s estimate of the gross weight, one might think it was towards…

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 Pantaleo

Details

AGLC: R v Pantaleo [2018] NSWDC 294
Case: [2018] NSWDC 294
Decision Date: 28 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pantaleo, the defendant was charged with multiple drug-related offences, including the importation of a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, methamphetamine, trafficking a marketable quantity of the same drug, and possession of a marketable quantity of cocaine. The case was heard in the relevant court where the defendant faced trial for these serious charges.

The central legal issues that the court had to address were the interpretation and application of the relevant drug trafficking and importation laws. The court needed to determine whether the prosecution had proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, what sentence should be imposed. The defence contested the evidence presented and argued for a lesser sentence if the charges were upheld.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of the charges against the defendant. The evidence provided, including the testimonies of witnesses and the physical evidence of the drugs, was deemed credible and sufficient to convict the defendant on all counts. The court then proceeded to consider the appropriate sentence, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court imposed sentences of six years for the importation offence, two years and three months for the trafficking offence, and one year and six months for the possession offence. A non-parole period was also fixed.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant would serve the specified sentences, with the non-parole period set to expire on 13 December 2019. The sentences were to commence on 14 April 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for six years commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2022. For the offence of trafficking a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for two years and three months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 July 2018. In respect of the offence of possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and six months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 October 2017. I fix a non-parole period of three years and eight months expiring on 13 December 2019.

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 Pantaleo [2018] NSWDC 294
Hearing dates:	20 April 2018
Date of orders:	28 May 2018
Decision date:	28 May 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	In respect of the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for six years commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2022. For the offence of trafficking a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for two years and three months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 July 2018. In respect of the offence of possessing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and six months commencing on 14 April 2016 and expiring on 13 October 2017. I fix a non-parole period of three years and eight months expiring on 13 December 2019.
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – importing commercial quantity of border controlled drug, trafficking marketable quantity of border controlled drug, possessing marketable quantity of border controlled drug – methamphetamine and cocaine
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 Criminal Code Act 1995
Cases Cited:	R v Okosi [2017] NSWDC 400 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Victor Daniel Pantaleo (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Barrow (Crown) Mr G James QC with Mr E James (Offender) Solicitors: CDPP (Crown) Dorian Kratsas, Law Company Proprietary Limited (Offender)
File Number(s):	2016/116029;2016/164039;2016/253323
Publication restriction:	Nil