R v Poulimenos

[2025] NSWDC 35

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Poulimenos [2025] NSWDC 35
Hearing dates:	27 February 2025
Decision date:	27 February 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Noman SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months to date from 19 March 2024. Non-parole period to expire 18 July 2025
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – detain for advantage in company - imprisonment
Legislation Cited:	s.86(2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex; Panagiota Poulimenos (aka Pam Ford)
Representation:	Solicitors: Crown: A Spring Defence: I Vizintin
File Number(s):	2023/320986

JUDGMENT

1. The offender, Panagiota Poulimenos, aka Pam Ford, appears for sentence after pleading in the Local Court to one offence of whilst in company detaining a female friend for advantage. The offender was in the company of her then partner and two other unknown females. The charge nominates the co-offender and an unknown person, but the facts refer to the co-offender and two unknown females. The nominated advantage is the property of the victim. This offence is contrary to s.86(2)(a) Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty represents the legislature’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence.

2. A reduction of 25% to the sentence will flow from the early plea.

3. The facts are set out in the agreed facts. I have had regard to the full facts.

4. The offender met the victim about a year prior to the offence. The victim knew the offender’s on and off partner, the co-offender Kyrran Daley, since about 2019. Although they knew each other they were not close friends. The offender lived walking distance from the victim’s home, where she lived with her brother Kevin and his partner and two children.

5. The detention offence was committed on 8 October 2023. The offender called the victim at about 6am and sought to secure her attendance at the offender’s home. The co-offender could be heard in the background. At about 6:52am the co-offender sent a text also asking the victim to visit. The victim attended at about 7am. She entered and spoke to both the offender and co-offender for about 5 minutes. The victim was approached from behind and an arm was used to place pressure on her throat and neck restricting her breathing. The unknown female was wearing a hockey mask. The victim was pulled backwards and onto the ground. The victim had a knife held against her throat and she was threatened with being stabbed. Someone placed a pillowcase over her head. Someone searched the victim’s pockets and items were taken and jewellery removed. The victim was placed in a seated position and her hands were bound with an extension cord thereby causing pain. One of the females demanded money and one said the victim had robbed that person’s brother. In addition to demanding money the unknown persons secured access to the victim’s phone and bank account. The knife was once again held against the victim’s throat and threats uttered. The victim’s phone was used to impersonate her and send messages to her brother. The offender and co-offender, consistent with the content of the messages, attended the victim’s home. The co-offender remained in contact with one of the unknown females and they discussed obtaining drugs kept by the victim. The co-offender had the key to the house. They tried to talk their way in to obtain some of the victim’s property but were unsuccessful. They left around 8:05am. The co-offender communicated with an unknown female. At 8:07am Kevin was called, and the victim spoke with him about obtaining money. The co-offender continued to send messages to one of the unknown females until 8:38am. This person still poked the knife at the victim’s throat, back of the neck and back on occasion. It was decided the victim could go home with the co-offender to retrieve money. There were further threats she would be stabbed. Her hands were untied and the cord briefly wrapped around her neck stymieing her breathing. The pillowcase was removed. The co-offender was told if she did not return, they would do something to the offender. The victim, co-offender and offender walked to the victim’s home. The victim managed to enter and lock the door behind her. Kevin approached the offender and co-offender. At 9:06am they left. Kevin contacted the police at 9:09am. The co-offender subsequently contacted the police and reported she and others were held hostage.

6. The offence continued over approximately 2 hours during which the victim was choked, tied up, threatened with both words and a knife and had property taken from her. Both threatened and actual violence was used. Although it is an element of the offence that it was committed in company, and requiring at least two persons, I take note that four persons were involved performing different roles. They acted as part of a joint criminal enterprise. The victim knew two of the four persons involved and those two utilised their acquaintanceship to lure the victim. The advantage sought was financial in that property was demanded and was in fact taken.

7. This would have been an incredibly frightening experience entailing a weapon and the victim being unable to see due to the pillowcase over her head. She was repeatedly made aware of the knife and words were used to scare her. She was tied up. Essentially, she was rendered highly vulnerable throughout. The offending only ceased when the victim extricated herself.

8. The offending was not spontaneous. All four involved were present in the home in the early hours of the morning when there was an attempt to encourage her attendance. They were prepared with a mask, cord, knife and pillowcase. There was no particular sophistication but there was some planning and forethought.

9. On behalf of the offender, it was submitted that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assaults, the threats with the knife and the restraints and the taking of property were within the scope of the joint criminal enterprise. Even if the offender was not privy to what would transpire once the victim attended, once the violence and weapon were produced, she did not seek to withdraw. She assumed a less prominent role, but she was still participating through to the end. I do not accede to the submissions on behalf of the offender, and I am satisfied of her participation in all events as part of a joint criminal enterprise.

10. I accept that the offender’s judgement would have been influenced by her drug use. This is an explanation but does not influence the seriousness.

11. I have considered the circumstances in which the offence occurred, including the role played by this offender as well as her complicity for the conduct of her co-offenders, the use of a weapon and restraints, the period of the detention, the abuse of the friendship with the adult female victim to obtain her attendance and the financial purpose of the offending. There was limited planning and limited sophistication.

12. The Crown submitted the offence fell within the mid-range of objective seriousness. The offender submitted it fell below the mid-range. I determine that this is a reasonably serious example of the offence provision.

13. The offender had an unfortunate background of physical and sexual abuse as both a child and an adult. She commenced drug use and after trying various substances remained addicted to amphetamines. This persisted at the time of offending. Fuller details are contained in the psychiatric report and other supporting documentation. I accept the disadvantage explains the drug use, and this in turn operates to lessen the moral culpability of the offender.

14. The offender was aged 43 at the time of offending. The offender has a number of entries on her criminal history commencing in 1998. She has received various sentencing outcomes including imprisonment. There are offences involving drug, weapons, violence and dishonesty. The offender’s antecedents operate to disentitle her to leniency.

15. She has breached a number of court orders and been resentenced for those breaches.

16. The offender relies upon a report authored by a Victim Services Counsellor working within Corrections NSW. This contains references to the historic and more recent trauma experienced by the offender and the asserted trigger for substance abuse. This is addressed in more detail in the psychiatric report authored by Dr Dayalan and it is from this report that the issues informing moral culpability were sourced. The offender disclosed her daily use of ice at the time of offending. She was occasionally using GHB. She voluntarily ceased adhering to compliance with her prescribed medication which likely impacted her mental health. The offender indicated she was emotionally and physically abused by her co-offender and family members of her co-offender. Medical notes from June 2023 support this account as the offender complained of her partner using financial control and social isolation as well as scaring the offender’s pet. It is those relatives that she inculpates as being the unknown females with whom she committed the offence.

17. The offender has no stable employment background or vocation training to assist in gaining employment. She has limited support in the community. She remains in contact with her mother, although this person is partially responsible for her disadvantaged background.

18. She is a long-term drug user who has only recently abstained in custody. Although she historically used various drugs her drug of sustained use and addiction was ice. There have been no sustained periods of abstinence. I note that she has a custodial sentence for possessing a prohibited drug in August 2024. The drug use supports the diagnosis of substance use disorder. Various drugs are listed although many must be regarded in remission given the last period of use.

19. The offender told Dr Dayalan that she wished she had stopped her co-offenders. She appears to overlook that she also participated as part of shared offending. She also described that she felt bad for the victim and that the victim did not deserve what happened. To the extent this is suggested to be remorse it is not fulsome.

20. I have had regard to the purposes of sentencing. This includes recognising the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

21. The offender’s prospects of rehabilitation and of not reoffending are difficult to gauge given the correlation between drug use and offending. The offender has never abstained from drug use in the community. This resolve will need to be tested in the community. I observe Dr Dayalan’s opinion that her prospects are favourable if she complied with treatment and successfully completed a rehabilitation program. I note that the medical notes from 2023 describe her time in the community as entailing a chaotic lifestyle and a situational crisis informed by her drug abuse. The prospects of success and compliance are highly speculative. I also observe that the offender when released to bail in 2024 breached her requirement to remain in residential rehabilitation and also committed the further offence. Personal deterrence continues to be important.

22. I observe her concern about having lost possession of her pet cats to the RSPCA as a consequence of entering custody. She evidently obtained emotional support from their company. Pet ownership may assist her compliance with parole.

23. General deterrence and denunciation are important considerations for this type of offending. I do not consider the subjective matters that informed moral culpability operate to lessen the importance of general deterrence.

24. No sentence other than full time imprisonment would address this offending. This is conceded on behalf of the offender, although it is submitted that time served would equate with the appropriate non-parole period.

25. I need to consider totality as the offender served an unrelated sentence of 6 months from 25 August 2024 until 24 February 2025. This sentence was for a police pursuit offence that was committed on 25 August 2024, about a month after release to bail. This offence would have been committed in breach of the bail for the index offending. I propose to allow some concurrency and will attribute a period of 2 months from this sentence. The offender had bail revoked for the index offence. She had been on remand for 9 months and 5 days between her arrest on 18 October 2023 until entering bail on 22 July 2024. There are a further 3 days on remand at the expiration of this sentence.

26. I determine sentence will be backdated by the 9 months and 8 days remand period and the 2 months from the unrelated sentence. Sentence will commence from 19 March 2024.

27. Special circumstances exist to warrant adjusting the statutory ratio. The offender will need additional support upon release to assist her to remain drug abstinent and to ensure her engagement in substance abuse related treatment.

28. The offender is convicted.

29. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months to date from 19 March 2024. The non-parole period will expire on 18 July 2025.

30. This is a variation of the ratio to 51% to give effect to my finding of special circumstances.

Decision last updated: 27 February 2025