Legal Research
Cases
R. v. Pantsis

R. v. Pantsis

Case [1998] VSCA 134 1 December 1998

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 181 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v
JOHN PANTSIS
---

JUDGES: TADGELL, BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 1 December 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 1 December 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 134
---
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Trafficking in heroin - Imprisonment for 4½ years with minimum term of 2½ years not manifestly excessive.
Observations on emphasis on principle of general deterrence in sentencing for drug offences.
---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr R.M. Read P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. Giasoumi Papasavas &
Zervos
TADGELL, J.A.:

The applicant, John Pantsis, pleaded guilty in the County Court on 6 July last to one count of trafficking in heroin between 19 September and 19 November 1997 contrary to s.71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and to one count of unauthorised possession of cannabis L on 19 November 1997 contrary to s.73 of the said Act. After a plea in mitigation the applicant was on the same day sentenced to be imprisoned on the first count to four-and-a-half years and on the second count to pay a fine of $100. A minimum term of two years and six months was set. The maximum imprisonment awardable on count 1 was 15 years and the maximum fine available on count 2 was $500.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence. Three grounds are specified in the notice of application. Mr Holdenson, who appeared this afternoon on the applicant's behalf, formulated his submissions around the third ground, namely that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He invited the Court to treat the first and second grounds as in effect particulars of the third. These were that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that the applicant was trafficking in order to feed his and his wife's addiction to heroin, and that the judge placed excessive weight upon specific and general deterrence and denunciation when the applicant was not motivated by greed, and he said that the judge placed insufficient weight on matters of mitigation.
The applicant is now 34 years of age, having been born in this country on 22 July 1964 to parents who were Greek immigrants. He is and evidently has been for many years a heroin addict, as is his wife, with whom he lives in a house at Abbotsford with their two very young children. The house is owned by the applicant's elderly parents, who also live there with his mentally retarded younger brother.
The applicant was arrested on 19 November last year, after police surveillance on that and the two preceding days had revealed extensive drug trafficking at the Abbotsford house. He admitted to police during an interview on the day of his arrest to selling 30 to 50 caps of heroin per day for about $30 to $35 each. He conceded that he habitually purchased heroin from…

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. Pantsis

Details

AGLC: R. v. Pantsis [1998] VSCA 134
Case: [1998] VSCA 134
Decision Date: 1 December 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R. v. Pantsis involved the appellant, Mr. Pantsis, who was convicted of trafficking in heroin and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 1/2 years, with a minimum term of 2 1/2 years. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mr. Pantsis appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing that the term imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the emphasis on general deterrence in cases involving drug trafficking. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and did not adequately consider the personal circumstances that may have influenced his involvement in drug trafficking.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the role of general deterrence in drug trafficking cases. It noted that while general deterrence is an important consideration, it must be balanced against other factors, including the individual circumstances of the offender. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It found that the lower court had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence reflected a proper balance between the need for general deterrence and the personal circumstances of the appellant. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, with no further orders made. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering both general deterrence and individual circumstances in sentencing for drug trafficking offences.

Orders