R v Tsingos

[2018] NSWDC 198

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Tsingos [2018] NSWDC 198
Hearing dates:	29 June 2018
Date of orders:	29 June 2018
Decision date:	29 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The offender is referred for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of an Intensive Corrections Order Make forfeiture order by consent
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Drug supply – Referral for assessment after completion of s11 bond.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Alexander Panagiotis Tsingos
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Goold Law - Offender
File Number(s):	2017/4478

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: When Mr Alexander Tsingos appeared before me on 13 October 2017, for reasons I then gave, I adjourned the matter under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. I made Mr Tsingos’ bail subject to a number of conditions, perhaps the most important of which was that he not use drugs and in order to prove that he was not using drugs he undergo regular urinalysis. This condition was in the context of Mr Tsingos’ offending as a drug supplier being related to his use of drugs. I considered that Mr Tsingos’ prospects of rehabilitation would be greatly increased if he was able to stop using drugs. I also require that Mr Tsingos provide the results of urinalysis to me on the next occasion. That has been done. The urinalysis reports are clear except for two matters which are easily explained.

2. The first is that there were traces of cannabis found on the very first occasion that Mr Tsingos underwent testing. It is well known that cannabis is a drug that hangs around in the system for some time. It is entirely possible that the results of that analysis can be explained by the circumstance that Mr Tsingos used cannabis before I saw him on 13 October last year. The other area of mention is that some of the urinalysis identified that Mr Tsingos had been taking a drug temazepam, which as it turns out was a drug prescribed to him by his psychiatrist. Mr Tsingos has continued to see his psychiatrist which has been of assistance to him.

3. Also I note that Mr Tsingos has continued to work until, apparently through no fault of his own, work has been unable to be found. He has delayed putting off looking for further permanent work not knowing what will happen to him in these proceedings.

4. The result is that Mr Tsingos has done everything I asked him to do. That is of course a very pleasing result. It means that Mr Tsingos’ need for personal deterrence in the sentence I will ultimately impose upon him is greatly reduced. That is not to say that general deterrence should be ignored, far from it. Mr Tsingos was a reasonably serious drug supplier. Messages on mobile phones that he carried identify a number of messages which are clearly related to Mr Tsingos supplying drugs to various people. So his drug dealing activities extended far beyond being in possession of a few bags of cocaine for the purposes of supplying them.

5. Although he was found with ten small resealable bags weighing 6.5 grams of cocaine it could not be suggested that, nor has Mr Goold tried to suggest that this was some form of isolated criminal behaviour. So Mr Tsingos needs to be punished as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to do what he did, become a drug supplier so that he could get his own drugs for personal use for free.

6. I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment is thus required. I am also satisfied that it is likely that that sentence will be for two years or less. In the circumstances of this case, including acknowledging Mr Tsingos’ early plea of guilty which entitles him to a 25% discount on the sentence I would otherwise have imposed, I intend to refer Mr Tsingos for assessment as to his suitability to serve his sentence by means of Intensive Corrections Order. His bail will be continued for that purpose but I will make it unconditional bail.

7. I will deal with the matter on 24 August and make the forfeiture order by consent.

8. Now Mr Tsingos you’ve done really well, okay, you are to be congratulated for that. A lot of people in your position come back, they’ve got dirty urines, they haven’t got a job, they haven’t kept up with the psychiatrist and I send them to gaol. So it’s a very easy decision for me to make because they’ve proved to me that they can’t get off drugs and in those circumstances I think well they’re going to go out and commit other offences I’ll send them to gaol. So it’s quite likely that if you continue going on the way you have been going that you’re not going to go to gaol. But you’ve still got, what is it, seven or eight weeks now before I’ll be seeing you again. Although I haven’t required that you continue with the urinalysis the Corrective Services people will be testing you. So don’t think, look I’m over the final fling with the drugs or anything of that kind. Because even though you’ve done well over the past year if you come back and they say you’re not suitable for an Intensive Corrections Order because you’ve been using drugs, you’ll be going to gaol, okay? So wouldn’t it be terrible having done all that good work for the last year to undo it in the last few weeks. So don’t do that Mr Tsingos. You’re doing well, as I say you’re to be congratulated. You’ve obviously put a lot of effort into making your life better for yourself, so don’t undo it now, okay?

9. OFFENDER: Yes.

10. HIS HONOUR: Thank you sir. Thank you Mr Goold, thank you Madam Crown.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 July 2018