Regina v Dumitru Lefter

[1999] NSWCCA 305

CITATION:	Regina v Dumitru Lefter [1999] NSWCCA 305
FILE NUMBER(S):	CCA 60439/98
HEARING DATE(S):	17/9/99
JUDGMENT DATE:	17 September 1999
PARTIES :	Regina Dumitru Lefter
JUDGMENT OF:	Sully J at 1; Barr J at 14

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	98/11/0475
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL:	L.B.M. Lamprati - Crown Applicant - in person
SOLICITORS:	S.E. O'Connor - Crown
CATCHWORDS:
ACTS CITED:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
DECISION:	Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed; Recommendation for deportation

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60439/98

SULLY J
BARR H

17 September 1999

REGINA v Dumitru LEFTER

JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: On 9 August 1998 the present applicant, Mr Dumitru Lefter, stood for sentence in the Sydney District Court before Gibson QC DCJ, the applicant having earlier entered pleas of guilty to two charges of having supplied a prohibited drug, namely, heroin. Any such offence contravenes Section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and attracts upon conviction a maximum statutory penalty of imprisonment for 15 years or a significant fine or both such imprisonment and fine. 2 In respect of the first of the two relevant matters, his Honour imposed upon the applicant a sentence of imprisonment of eight years, which his Honour apportioned between a minimum term of six years and an additional term of two years. In respect of the second relevant matter, his Honour fixed a concurrent sentence and imposed a term of imprisonment of three years. His Honour appended to the sentence a recommendation for the deportation in due course of the applicant. 3 The material facts are set out in the relevant facts sheets which are before the Court in the Appeal Book. It is not necessary, I think, to take time to recount them in fine detail.
4   They disclose a course of conduct of which nothing more need be said than that, in objective terms, it was extremely serious, as Courts of the highest authority have repeatedly said and as the sentencing Judge expressed correctly, - if I might respectfully observe. 5   The subjective matters available to be put for the applicant are set out in written material forwarded on 29 April last by the applicant to the Registrar of the Court and supported, in part at least, by the letter of 2 September 1999 sent to the Registrar by Mr Baker, an alcohol and drug worker, who has had some relevant contact with the applicant. 6   The applicant appears in person having been refused legal aid in connection with this present application. He has put clear oral submissions expanding somewhat on what appears in the written material of which I have spoken. What appears in the written material, put simply, is that the applicant has had a long history of alcohol abuse. In order to support that addiction, he has required, from time to time at least, not insignificant amounts of money; and in order to obtain that money he has, from time to time at least, been involved in the trafficking of illicit drugs. 7   When the applicant stood for sentence before his Honour, he had already recorded against him a conviction in April of 1994 for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug. He had been dealt with on that occasion in a way which appears on the face of the record to have been fairly lenient, in that he was sentenced to a minimum term of two years nine months, and an additional term of one year. I do not think that is in any way unduly harsh to suppose that it was indicated in the clearest terms imaginable to the applicant that any continued dealing in drugs was likely to attract not only a custodial sentence, but a custodial sentence likely to be very much more severe than the one imposed in 1994. 8   The applicant has stressed in his oral submissions this morning that he has never been, to use the colloquial phrase, "a street dealer in heroin". He has stressed that insofar as he has had dealings in drugs, he has been what might be described as the middleman between the ultimate dealer and the ultimate consumer. 9   There is abundant authority for the proposition that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that such a middleman will always be treated significantly more leniently than the ultimate dealer or the ultimate consumer. 10   The applicant, when he stood for sentence, had in addition to the particular prior offence to which I have referred, a record which was in general terms a bad one. 11   I have read with care the remarks on sentence of the learned primary Judge. They are, if I might respectfully observe, brief and to the point; but it seems to me that they deal clearly and sufficiently with all relevant objective and subjective matters and bring them into a fair balance. As far as I, at least, am able to discern, there is no cause shown for the present intervention of this Court. 12   I would grant leave to appeal and dismiss the substantive appeal. 13   I would think it proper to append to those orders, as did the learned primary Judge, a recommendation for deportation. 14   BARR J: I agree. 15   SULLY J: The orders of the Court are as I have proposed.

**********