R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 873

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 873 Hearing dates: 2 October 2020 Decision date: 02 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 10 months. Non parole period of 12 months. Catchwords: CRIME – Make collusive agreement with member of NSW Police SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence - integrity of the administration of justice – drug dealer seeks information from serving police officer - late guilty plea- accumulation on existing sentence totality - special circumstances Legislation Cited: Police Act 1990 (NSW Cases Cited: Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110 R v Hoyn [2020] NSWDC 834 Category: Sentence Parties: Goran Despotovski (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions Representation: Counsel: Mr D Roff (for the offender) Ms J Hopper (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Solicitors: McGirr Lawyers (for the offender) File Number(s): 2018/00375206 Publication restriction: No publication of any information that might identify the Undercover Police officer, including publication of any operational pseudonym.

sentence – ex tempore revised 1. On 15 April 2020 I sentenced Goran Despotovski to five years and seven months imprisonment for supplying a large commercial quantity of cannabis leaf. His non-parole period of three years and six months commenced on 20 December 2019, and his current parole date is 19 June 2022: see R v Despotovski [2020] NSWDC 110. 2. Mr Despotovski pleaded guilty to the supply offence. At about the same time he was also arrested and charged with an offence of making a collusive agreement with a member of the New South Wales Police Force. That offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment: s 201B of the Police Act 1990 (NSW). His plea to that charge came just before the date fixed for trial. A reduction of 5% of the otherwise appropriate sentence is justified. Sentencing is not meant to be an arithmetical exercise. When I apply the discount, I am not obliged, as I understand it, to break the sentence down into weeks, days or hours. He will probably get a benefit beyond the statutory provision, simply to avoid such a circumstance. 3. His guilty plea indicates an acceptance of responsibility, belated though it was, it did save some court time. Whether it indicates remorse or regret or an acceptance of the inevitable is impossible for me to say. 4. There are agreed facts for sentence. They start with this premise; Despotovski was a drug dealer. He met Dennis Hoyn, who at the relevant time was a Senior Constable of NSW Police, on 4 December, at a hotel in Wollongong. The offender asked Hoyn to look someone up for him on the NSW Police records system and provided him with details and descriptions of that named person. He told Hoyn that this person owed him a substantial amount of money. Hoyn was convicted after trial and has been sentenced: R v Hoyn [2020] NSWDC 834. 5. The two men exchanged phone numbers. Unbeknownst to either of them, there was a lawful listening device operating on Despotovski's phone. He was later recorded talking to his wife about the meeting. 6. The following day Despotovski and Hoyn had a conversation about meeting at the hotel. During the phone call Despotovski asked how Hoyn had gone with his "homework," to which Hoyn ultimately replied "I'll show ya, I'll show ya." It is clear that Despotovski was concerned that the person nominated might be an undercover operative. He and his wife discussed leaving the State if they received information confirming that belief. 7. On 5 December the two men met at the local hotel. Hoyn showed Despotovski screenshots that he had obtained from the police information system. Despotovski gave Hoyn $300 in cash, which he used for gambling at the hotel that night. Hoyn did not bring much money to the hotel. When he left the hotel he had $200 in his possession. 8. Hoyn and Despotovski were spoken to by police that night. In a police interview, Despotovski made a number of denials that were contradicted by the agreed facts. He told police the money exchanged was for Hoyn to place bets on behalf of Despotovski. That answer does not explain the fact that Hoyn had cash on him when he was spoken to that night.