R v Steve Poliopoulos - [2012] NSWDC 205

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Steve POLIOPOULOS [2012] NSWDC 205
Hearing dates: 07/09/2012
Decision date: 13 September 2012
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Term of imprisonment of 2 years with a non-parole period of 7 months.

Catchwords: CRIME - Sentence - ongoing supply of a prohibited drug - early plea - prior good character - residential rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985)
Cases Cited: R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
R v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47
Fayd'herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20
R v Giang [2005] NSWCCA 87
R v Hoon [2000] NSWCCA 137
R v Kairouz [2005] NSWCCA 247
R v Cheikh [2004] NSWCCA
R v Gidaro [2005] NSWCCA 18
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Steve Poliopoulos
Representation: Mr Raymond - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Nicopoulos - JN Legal - Offender

File Number(s): 2011/207007

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Mr Poliopoulos appears today for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court and to which he continued his plea of guilty in this Court. The offence alleged against him is contrary to s 25A(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985) and carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units or both. There is no standard non-parole period.

The particulars of the charge allege that he between 27 May 2011 and 24 June 2011 at Kingsgrove/Surry Hills in the State of New South Wales did on three or more separate occasions during a period of thirty consecutive days supply a prohibited drug other than cannabis, to wit crystallised methamphetamine, for financial or material reward.

In relation to his plea of guilty, I am satisfied in all the circumstances, bearing in mind that part of the time since he has been in charge he has been in a full-time rehabilitation program, that his plea of guilty at the Local Court, was entered at the first reasonable opportunity. In accordance with the guideline judgment on the utilitarian benefit of pleas of guilty and the discounts to be provided in such circumstances where there is utilitarian benefit in the plea of guilty, that is the decision of Thomson and Houlton, I propose to give the prisoner the benefit of a discount of 25% upon the otherwise appropriate sentence. The Crown did not oppose that course.

The facts of the matter are set out in a detailed statement of facts which I do not propose to recount. There are some important salient issues though, that arise from the facts. Firstly, the prisoner was involved in five supplies over a period between 27 May and 24 June 2011. The prisoner sold the crystallised methamphetamine to an undercover operative called 'Roberto'. I am not provided with the full details of the circumstances of their first meeting, however, in light of the expressions contained within the…

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 Steve Poliopoulos

Details

AGLC: R v Steve Poliopoulos [2012] NSWDC 205
Case: [2012] NSWDC 205
Decision Date: 13 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Steve Poliopoulos, who was convicted for his involvement in the ongoing supply of a prohibited drug. Poliopoulos entered an early plea, which was a mitigating factor. He had no prior criminal record and was described as having good character. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, Poliopoulos’s plea, his character, and the potential benefits of a residential rehabilitation program. The central legal issue was to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the mitigating factors presented by Poliopoulos.

The court considered the severity of the offence, Poliopoulos’s role in the supply chain, and his decision to plead early. The judge also took into account Poliopoulos’s otherwise good character and the potential for rehabilitation through a residential program. The sentencing principles of proportionality and deterrence were weighed against the mitigating factors of Poliopoulos’s early plea and good character. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and to deter future offending, but also recognised the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering the sentence, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of two years, with a non-parole period of seven months. This decision recognised the seriousness of Poliopoulos’s offence while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation through a residential program. The court believed that this sentence was appropriate given the mitigating factors and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the principles of justice and proportionality, ensuring that the sentence reflected both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender.

The final orders of the court were that Steve Poliopoulos be imprisoned for a term of two years, with a non-parole period of seven months. This sentence allows for the possibility of rehabilitation during the custodial period, while also ensuring that Poliopoulos is held accountable for his actions. The court's decision aimed to strike a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment of 2 years with a non-parole period of 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Steve POLIOPOULOS [2012] NSWDC 205
Hearing dates:	07/09/2012
Decision date:	13 September 2012
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Term of imprisonment of 2 years with a non-parole period of 7 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Sentence - ongoing supply of a prohibited drug - early plea - prior good character - residential rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985)
Cases Cited:	R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383 R v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47 Fayd'herbe v R [2007] NSWCCA 20 R v Giang [2005] NSWCCA 87 R v Hoon [2000] NSWCCA 137 R v Kairouz [2005] NSWCCA 247 R v Cheikh [2004] NSWCCA R v Gidaro [2005] NSWCCA 18
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Steve Poliopoulos
Representation:	Mr Raymond - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Nicopoulos - JN Legal - Offender
File Number(s):	2011/207007