R v Sikos, George - [2017] NSWDC 242

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SIKOS, George [2017] NSWDC 242
Hearing dates: 25 May 2017
Date of orders: 25 May 2017
Decision date: 25 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Sentence – supply prohibited drug – commercial quantity of 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine – supply cocaine simpliciter – Form 1 offence – very high purity cocaine – undercover police officer – role of offender – middle man between the wholesaler of the drugs and the buyer – offender had personal relationship with people involved in the transaction – assessing objective seriousness for offence with standard non-parole period – Form 1 offence intimately tied up with principal offence – limited discount on the plea of guilty after matter listed for trial – withdrawal of the offender from the enterprise prior to the charges laid – no prior criminal convictions – no mental health issues – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121
R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 16
R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228
Hammoud [2002] NSWCCA 540
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
George Sikos (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mrs. Wheatley (Crown)
Mr. Picken (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/00040892

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Sikos my practice is to tell people in advance what sentence I propose to impose. Ultimately for people being sentenced that is all they really are concerned about. Much of what I will speak about you already know or you are not interested in. The total sentence I propose to impose upon you is a sentence of five years, five months imprisonment to date from the date that you came into custody which I understand is 9 February 2015. I propose to impose an effective non‑parole period of two years, nine months which means that you will be eligible for release to parole on 8 November this year.
Whether you are released to parole will be a matter for the Parole Authority. Having previously never been on parole it may well be that it will not be a significant issue for you to be released on parole on that date. I have to give my reasons. There is a large number of issues I have to address not only by reason of the submissions made by the parties, particularly your counsel but because of the varying legislation that is to be taken into account so I will take some little time.
The prisoner George Sikos appears today for sentence in relation to offences that were committed on 30 December 2014 and 8 January 2015. The accused was to be tried initially in respect of a range of offences committed variously on 22 December 2014 and 30 December 2014 and 8…

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 Sikos, George

Details

AGLC: R v Sikos, George [2017] NSWDC 242
Case: [2017] NSWDC 242
Decision Date: 25 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sikos, the appellant, George Sikos, was convicted for supplying a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine and cocaine simpliciter. The dispute came before the court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Sikos. The court was required to consider the objective seriousness of the offence, the role of Sikos in the drug supply chain, and the availability of mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, the role of Sikos as a middle man in the drug supply chain, and the application of any available mitigating factors. The court considered the nature and quantity of the drugs supplied, the purity of the cocaine, and Sikos's involvement in the transaction. Additionally, the court considered Sikos's withdrawal from the enterprise prior to the charges being laid, his lack of prior criminal convictions, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

In determining the sentence, the court assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, which was high due to the quantity and purity of the drugs involved. The court also considered Sikos's role as a middle man between the wholesaler and the buyer, and the fact that he had a personal relationship with the people involved in the transaction. Despite this, the court acknowledged Sikos's withdrawal from the enterprise prior to the charges being laid, his lack of prior criminal convictions, and his good prospects for rehabilitation. As a result, the court decided to impose a full-time custodial sentence, taking into account the plea of guilty and the limited discount available.

The court ordered a full-time custodial sentence for Sikos, with specific details outlined in the final orders of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]

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 SIKOS, George [2017] NSWDC 242
Hearing dates:	25 May 2017
Date of orders:	25 May 2017
Decision date:	25 May 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [85]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence – supply prohibited drug – commercial quantity of 3-4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine – supply cocaine simpliciter – Form 1 offence – very high purity cocaine – undercover police officer – role of offender – middle man between the wholesaler of the drugs and the buyer – offender had personal relationship with people involved in the transaction – assessing objective seriousness for offence with standard non-parole period – Form 1 offence intimately tied up with principal offence – limited discount on the plea of guilty after matter listed for trial – withdrawal of the offender from the enterprise prior to the charges laid – no prior criminal convictions – no mental health issues – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Blanco [1999] NSWCCA 121 R v Pickett [2010] NSWCCA 273 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 16 R v Burns [2007] NSWCCA 228 Hammoud [2002] NSWCCA 540
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) George Sikos (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mrs. Wheatley (Crown) Mr. Picken (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2015/00040892