R v GEORGIOU [2005] NSWCCA 237

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

R v GEORGIOU [2005] NSWCCA 237 CITATION: This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 8 December 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Hulme J at 3; Hidden J at 61

DECISION: Dismiss the appeal against conviction; Grant leave to appeal against sentence; Dismiss the appeal against the sentences imposed in respect of counts 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Allow the appeal againt the sentences imposed in respect of counts 3 and 4 and quash those sentences; In respect of count 3 sentence the Appellant to imprisonment for a term of 5 years including a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months both such periods commencing on 3 February 1998; In respect of count 4 sentence the Appellant to imprisonment for a term of 4 years including a non-parole period of 3 years both such periods commencing on 3 February 1998

Regina PARTIES: Constantinos Georgiou

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60494/02

Crown: P Ingram COUNSEL: Appellant: M O'Brien

Crown: SE O'Connor SOLICITORS: Appellant: J Jordan

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/11/0142

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shillington DCJ

- 20 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 6094/02

SANTOW JA HULME J HIDDEN J

Monday, 4 July 2005 R v Constantinos GEORGIOU Judgment 1 SANTOW JA: I agree in both reasons and result with Hulme J as regards the appeal against conviction. 2 So far as sentence is concerned, I agree with Hulme J as to the result, and essentially with his reasons. However, like Hidden J I would prefer to hear fuller argument before concluding that the statistics by themselves "strongly suggest" undue leniency in drug conviction sentence for this category of offence. That said, I agree with Hulme J that continuing discrepancy between the maximum sentence for an offence, and a lower top end of the actual sentencing range is clear cause for concern, and may indeed suggest undue leniency. But one would need to view carefully the features of the cases in that (lower) top range before reaching any concluded view on that matter. 3 HULME J: On 4 June 2003, the above named Appellant was arraigned on 8 counts. (i) On 13 May 1996 supplying 105 grams of methylamphetamine. (ii) On 13 May 1996 supplying 112 grams of cocaine. (iii) On 15 May 1996 supplying 52.28 grams of cocaine. (iv) On 15 May 1996 supplying 14.9 grams of methylamphetamine. (v) On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited weapon viz a butterfly knife. (vi) On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited weapon viz an electrical discharge device. (vii) On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited weapon viz an nunchaku. (viii) On 15 May 1996 possessing a prohibited article, namely handcuffs. 4 On 24 June 2002 a jury convicted him in respect of the first and third to eighth of these offences. Earlier they had been directed to find a verdict of not guilty on the second count. On 28 June 2002 Judge Shillington sentenced the Appellant. On the first, third and fourth charges imprisonment for a period of 8 years including a non-parole period of 6 years commencing on 3 February 1998 was imposed and in respect of the fifth to eighth charges the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent fixed terms of 1 year also commencing on 3 February 1998. 5 In his remarks on sentence Judge Shillington observed that the Appellant had been the subject of 24 hour surveillance for a period prior to his arrest on 15 May 1996 and that it was clear that the Appellant had dealt over a period on a large scale in methylamphetamine and cocaine. In or near the premises quantities of these drugs and indicia of drug dealing had been found together with the four items, the subject of counts five to eight. Counts 3 and 4 related to the "deemed supply" of drugs found and count 1 to an actual supply to 2 persons, Messrs Mouhalos and Putland. 6 Judge Shillington took the view that all of the Appellant's offences should be regarded as incidents of his drug dealing activities and that the offences should be regarded "globally". 7 There are two grounds of appeal, one against conviction and one against sentence. In addition the Appellant, who appeared for himself, raised with the Court the condition of his health and this also is a matter to which I will later refer. The grounds of appeal were:- 1. The learned trial Judge erred in law in that he allowed into evidence purported transcripts of conversations allegedly between the Appellant and other persons when the Jury had available to it copies of the tape recordings from which those transcripts were purportedly made. 2. The learned trial Judge imposed sentences which were manifestly unfair in that the sentences - (a) Were significantly longer than those imposed by Courts for similar types of offences. (b) Were not on par with the sentences imposed on and did not properly differentiate between the circumstances applicable to the Appellant's co-accused.