R v Petkos (No.2) - [2019] NSWDC 330

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Petkos (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 330
Hearing dates: 4 April 2019 and 17 June 2019
Decision date: 17 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years with a non parole period of 5 years.

Catchwords: CRIME - SENTENCE - supply prohibited drug, greater than the large commercial quantity for that drug - attempting to supply prohibited drug, greater than the indictable quantity for that drug.
Legislation Cited: Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW): SS 25(2) and 25(1)
Cases Cited: R v Petkos [2019] NSWDC 175
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Jim Petkos (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Chan (ODPP)
Mr Smith (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/160433
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Jim Petkos, you appear for sentence today in relation to two principal offences.
The first principal offence (Sequence 1) is supplying a prohibited drug, greater than the large commercial quantity for that drug. This involves a contravention of s 25(2) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act.
The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of 15 years imprisonment.
The second principal offence (Sequence 4) is attempting to supply a prohibited drug, greater than the indictable quantity for that drug. This involves a contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act.
The maximum penalty for that offence is 15 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.
In addition to those two principal offences, you have asked me to take into account, in relation to the first principal offence, two matters on a Form 1 which I have certified. Those two matters are: possessing a prohibited weapon; and possessing a precursor for the manufacture of a prohibited drug.
The facts surrounding your offending conduct are now contained in a document entitled "agreed facts", being part of the Crown’s amended Crown sentence summary. I say "now" because there was a version of facts advanced earlier in the sentence hearing which has effectively been withdrawn, although there are some residual consequences in connection with that to which I shall refer in these remarks (see R v Petkos [2019] NSWDC 175).
As at March 2018, you were approximately 49 years of age. You were living on your own at premises in Winston Hills. Specifically you were living in a granny flat at those premises - although the principal part of the premises seems to have been owned by you but leased out to others.
In circumstances not revealed by the (now) agreed facts, your activities became the subject of interest by the New South Wales Police. As a consequence, the police obtained a warrant for the lawful surveillance of your mobile phone service.
When that warrant was deployed in the period of March to May 2018, the police found that you were engaging in what is described as "drug supply chatter" for a drug commonly known as GBL.
Furthermore,…

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 Petkos (No.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Petkos (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 330
Case: [2019] NSWDC 330
Decision Date: 17 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Petkos (No.2), the respondent was convicted of various drug-related offences and the appeal was against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the substantial quantities of drugs involved and the respondent’s role in the drug supply operation. The appeal raised questions about the application of sentencing principles and the appropriate weight to be given to various factors, including the respondent's culpability and the seriousness of the offences.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles of sentencing for drug trafficking offences and the application of those principles to the facts of this case. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there were any errors in the application of the sentencing principles that warranted interference with the sentence. The court also needed to assess the proportionality of the sentence relative to the gravity of the offences and the respondent’s role in the drug supply operation.

The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant principles and that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences, noting the substantial quantities of drugs involved and the respondent's active role in the drug supply operation. The court concluded that the sentence of an aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years, was appropriate and reflected the gravity of the offences and the respondent's culpability. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, confirming an aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years. This decision underscores the court's view on the appropriate sentencing for large-scale drug supply offences and the importance of proportionality in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years with a non parole period of 5 years.

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 Petkos (No.2) [2019] NSWDC 330
Hearing dates:	4 April 2019 and 17 June 2019
Decision date:	17 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years with a non parole period of 5 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - supply prohibited drug, greater than the large commercial quantity for that drug - attempting to supply prohibited drug, greater than the indictable quantity for that drug.
Legislation Cited:	Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW): SS 25(2) and 25(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Petkos [2019] NSWDC 175
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Jim Petkos (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Chan (ODPP) Mr Smith (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2018/160433
Publication restriction:	Nil