R v Tsoumbanellis - [2024] NSWDC 657

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tsoumbanellis [2024] NSWDC 657
Hearing dates: 15 November 2025, 5 & 10 December 2025
Date of orders: 10 December 2024
Decision date: 10 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See pars [55]-[56].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – Knowingly take part in supply of commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime ($24,950) – Offender 70 years of age – Fulltime custodial sentence imposed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900, s 193B(2).
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(2)(ea).
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ss 25(2), 36Y(1)(a).

Cases Cited:
Nil.

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Offender – Dimitrios Tsoumbanellis
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown – Mr Betts, L.
Offender – Mr Stewart, D.
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Offender - Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors

File Number(s): 2023/00331348
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Dimitrios Tsoumbanellis stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to two substantive charges. The first charge was that on the 18^th day of October 2023 at Ultimo in this State he did knowingly take part in the supply of methylamphetamine, being an amount which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug. That is an offence contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years. Parliament has fixed a standard non-parole period of ten years.
I would have to apply that standard non-parole period if the offender had pleaded not guilty, had been convicted after trial of the offence and the objective seriousness of the offence was in the mid-range.
The second substantive offence to which the offender pleaded guilty, is that on the 18^th day of October 2023 at Ultimo in this State he did deal with the proceeds of crime, namely $24,950 knowing that it was the proceeds of crime. That is an offence contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 15 years. There is no standard non-parole period.

Matters on the Forms 1

In connection with the first of those substantive offences, the offender asks me to take into account two matters on a Form 1. The first of those offences is known as Sequence 4. The relevant allegation is that between 12.30pm and 4.00pm on 18 October 2023 at Ultimo he did knowingly allow premises, namely Unit 309, 2-12 Smail Street Ultimo, to be used as drug premises, the offender being the occupier of those premises. That is an offence contrary to s 36Y(1)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
The second matter on the Form 1 is an allegation of an offence contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The allegation is that between 12.30pm and 4pm on 18 October 2023…

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 Tsoumbanellis

Details

AGLC: R v Tsoumbanellis [2024] NSWDC 657
Case: [2024] NSWDC 657
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tsoumbanellis involved the defendant, Tsoumbanellis, charged with participating in the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and dealing with the proceeds of crime amounting to $24,950. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Byrne. The defendant, aged 70, faced serious criminal charges that necessitated a thorough examination of both the nature of the offences and the appropriate sentencing considerations.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentence for the defendant's involvement in the drug supply and dealing with the proceeds of crime. Given the defendant's age, the court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of his age and potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered whether the statutory aggravating and mitigating factors provided any guidance in determining the appropriate sentence.

Justice Byrne, in delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors pertinent to the case. The court acknowledged the defendant’s age and the fact that he had no prior criminal record, which could potentially mitigate the severity of the sentence. However, the court also highlighted the significant nature of the offences, particularly the involvement in the supply of a commercial quantity of a dangerous drug and the substantial proceeds involved. Ultimately, the court concluded that despite the mitigating factors, the seriousness of the offences warranted a full-time custodial sentence. The judge imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes while considering the defendant's age and other mitigating circumstances.

The final orders, as outlined in paragraphs [55] and [56] of the judgment, detailed the specific sentence imposed on the defendant, taking into account both the statutory guidelines and the unique facts of the case. The sentence was designed to serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence while also considering the defendant’s personal circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [55]-[56].

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 Tsoumbanellis [2024] NSWDC 657
Hearing dates:	15 November 2025, 5 & 10 December 2025
Date of orders:	10 December 2024
Decision date:	10 December 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [55]-[56].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – Knowingly take part in supply of commercial quantity of methylamphetamine – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime ($24,950) – Offender 70 years of age – Fulltime custodial sentence imposed.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900, s 193B(2). Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A(2)(ea). Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, ss 25(2), 36Y(1)(a).
Cases Cited:	Nil.
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown – R (NSW) Offender – Dimitrios Tsoumbanellis
Representation:	Counsel: Crown – Mr Betts, L. Offender – Mr Stewart, D. Solicitors: Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Offender - Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors
File Number(s):	2023/00331348
Publication restriction:	Nil.