Regina v Jim Mouroufas

[2007] NSWDC 333

CITATION:	Regina v Jim Mouroufas [2007] NSWDC 333
HEARING DATE(S):	29/3/07 and 15/05/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 May 2007
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ at 1
DECISION:	Parole order varied - supervision condition revoked.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Parole order - Supervision condition - Ill health of offender and his wife - Interests of justice
LEGISLATION CITED:	s43 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
PARTIES:	Regina Jim Mouroufas
FILE NUMBER(S):	07/11/0231
SOLICITORS:	Ms Jeffreys for the NSW DPP Mr Mouroufas representing himself

JUDGMENT

1. On 29 March 2007 I sentenced Mr Jim Mouroufas to a period of imprisonment in respect of matters to which he had pleaded guilty. The non-parole period I directed to expire on that date or shortly before that date. The parole period commenced on that date and expires in June next year.

2. Mr Mouroufas comes from South Australia where his wife and children reside. I recommended in my sentence that steps be taken to transfer his parole including supervision to South Australia so that he could be with his family.

3. Mr Mouroufas has been pursuing that course through the New South Wales parole authorities but it is taking a long time. He has recently been told that it might be several months more. He has tendered before me today two medical certificates which I have admitted and will mark as exhibits 1 and 2. One of them concerns the health of his wife and is from a medical practitioner who is treating her and is dated 17 April 2007. Without going into the details of the condition for which she is being treated, the doctor expressed the view that it would "help her treatment immensely if her husband can return to Adelaide to support her through her illness ASAP". A second certificate was obtained by Mr Mouroufas from his own medical practitioner Dr Buckley. It was dated 23 April 2007. It points out that he has been suffering diabetes and that condition has deteriorated over the last few years partly due to the inadequate diet which he received during the period of his imprisonment.

4. Dr Buckley supported his application for parole transfer back to Adelaide so that he can start to address his dietary issues with the support of his family:

“I realise it is almost impossible for anyone with his medical condition to prepare his own meals according to the dietician's instructions if he is living in a hotel for his health. Jim requires a stable environment so that he can regain his diabetic control and address the various health issues".

5. I am somewhat reluctant to remove the requirement for supervision but in this case it seems that the requirement for supervision is having significant damaging effects upon the health and well being of both the offender Mr Mouroufas and his wife. I have therefore determined that an appropriate course is to delete that requirement in order to expedite the return of Mr Mouroufas to South Australia. This will hopefully lead to an improvement in the health of both him and his wife. I'll pause there. Ms Jeffreys, I'm not sure how I'll do it.

JEFFREYS: I don't believe there's a specific section of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act which allows your Honour to do that. It's simply a matter I believe that your Honour will do it in the interests of justice. It's not a matter which would fall within section 43.

HIS HONOUR: That's the section, to revise a sentence. Let's just do it.

6. I therefore direct in respect of the sentence I imposed on Mr Mouroufas that the condition that the parole be supervised be deleted.

oOo