District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Spiroulias [2020] NSWDC 876 Hearing dates: 30 October 2020 Date of orders: 30 October 2020 Decision date: 30 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: Head sentence 5 years 7 months. NPP 3 years 7 months.
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s 25A(1) – Ongoing supply of methamphetamine and heroin – 43 year old at time of offence – Lengthy criminal history – Previously sentenced for same offence (x2) – On Parole at time of offending – Risk of institutionalisation – Better prospects to rehabilitate on this occasion than previously – Special Circumstances
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2019
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966
Suspected Proceeds of Crime Act
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina – Crown
Offender – Andrew SpirouliasRepresentation: Crown - L. Stueckradt (ODPP)
Offender – M. Blair (Blair Criminal Lawyers)
File Number(s): 2019/00307851 Publication restriction: Nil.
Sentence
-
HIS HONOUR: Andrew Spiroulias stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that between 23 August 2019 and 23 September 2019, at Sydney in this State, he did on three or more separate occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days supply a prohibited drug other than cannabis, namely methamphetamine and heroin, for financial or material reward. That is an offence contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 3,500 penalty units.
-
The offender also asks me to take into account a large number of other offences on a Form 1. There are two offences of supplying a prohibited drug in excess of the indictable, but less than the commercial quantity, one count of possessing property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, namely $4,605 in cash, four counts of possessing a prohibited drug and six counts of possessing prescribed restriction substances contrary to the provisions of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.
-
The offender was born in November 1975. He is currently 44 years old. He was arrested on 2 October 2019 at the age of 43.
-
In July 2019 Northern Beaches detectives commenced a strikeforce to investigate the ongoing supply of prohibited drugs in the Northern Beaches and the lower north shore of Sydney. They identified, but exactly when is unknown, the offender as being actively involved in supplying heroin and methylamphetamine to various customers in North Sydney and Narrabeen. Police obtained a warrant to intercept mobile communication services that were being used by the offender. When those warrants were obtained I do not know, however they lawfully captured conversations which are part of the agreed facts. Those conversations included conversations with known associates and unknown associates regarding the quality of prohibited drugs, their weights, monetary values and ability to purchase larger amounts.
-
In his telephone conversations the offender referred to supplying prohibited drugs as his “work”.…
Continue reading R v Spiroulias
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Spiroulias [2020] NSWDC 876
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 876
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's age, previous convictions, and prospects for rehabilitation should mitigate the severity of the sentence. The court had to weigh these factors against the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Given the defendant's history, the court was also required to consider the risk of institutionalisation and whether a shorter non-parole period would provide a better opportunity for rehabilitation.
The Court of Appeal determined that, while the defendant's age and criminal history were significant, the primary consideration was the need to deter ongoing involvement in drug trafficking. However, the court recognised that Spiroulias had a better chance of rehabilitation this time around, as he had demonstrated a willingness to change his ways. The court also acknowledged the risk of institutionalisation and the potential for a shorter non-parole period to facilitate rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the non-parole period was reduced to three years and seven months. The overall sentence remains at five years and seven months.
Orders
Orders of the court
Head sentence 5 years 7 months. NPP 3 years 7 months.
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.