AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 29 June 2018

R v Tsingos

[2018] NSWDC 198

Drugs
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE DRUG SUPPLY

Citation: R v Tsingos [2018] NSWDC 198
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 June 2018
Judge: Berman SC DCJ

Background

The offender appeared before the District Court for sentencing on drug supply charges. He had been found with ten small resealable bags containing 6.5 grams of cocaine, and mobile phone evidence indicated his supply activities extended well beyond that single occasion. His drug dealing was connected to his own drug use, a pattern the court noted at the earlier hearing in October 2017.

At that earlier appearance, the court adjourned the matter under section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act rather than proceeding immediately to sentence. Section 11 allows a court to defer sentencing to allow an offender to demonstrate rehabilitation or other relevant changes in circumstances. The court imposed bail conditions requiring the offender to abstain from drugs, submit to regular urinalysis, and provide those results to the court.

At the June 2018 hearing, the court reviewed the offender's compliance with those conditions before proceeding to the next step in the sentencing process.

  • Whether the offender had complied with the conditions of his section 11 adjournment, particularly the requirement to abstain from drug use
  • What weight to give personal deterrence versus general deterrence in sentencing a drug supplier whose offending was connected to his own drug dependency
  • Whether the circumstances of the case warranted a sentence of two years or less, making the offender eligible for an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO)
  • Whether the matter should be referred for assessment of the offender's suitability to serve any sentence by way of an ICO

Decision

The court found that the offender had complied substantially with all bail conditions imposed at the October 2017 adjournment. Two urinalysis results had raised minor questions: an initial trace of cannabis, which the court accepted was consistent with use predating the adjournment, and the presence of temazepam, which was a prescribed medication. The court was satisfied both were adequately explained.

On the question of personal deterrence, the court held that the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation significantly reduced the weight to be given to that sentencing consideration. The court was clear, however, that general deterrence remained a serious factor. The offender was described as a reasonably serious drug supplier whose activities were not isolated, and others who might be tempted to supply drugs in order to fund their own use needed to be deterred.

The court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was required, but was satisfied it would likely be two years or less. Taking into account the offender's early guilty plea, to which a 25 percent discount applied, the court indicated an intention to refer the matter for an ICO assessment rather than proceed directly to the imposition of a full-time custodial sentence.

Orders Made

  • The offender was referred for assessment of suitability to serve his sentence by way of an Intensive Corrections Order
  • Bail was continued on an unconditional basis pending that assessment
  • The matter was listed for 24 August for finalisation
  • A forfeiture order was to be made by consent on the return date

Key Takeaways

  • Under section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, a court may adjourn sentencing to allow an offender to demonstrate rehabilitation, and evidence of genuine compliance can meaningfully reduce the weight given to personal deterrence at the final sentence.
  • The District Court confirmed that even where personal deterrence is reduced, general deterrence retains significant weight in drug supply cases, particularly where offending was sustained and not isolated.
  • An early guilty plea attracted a 25 percent sentencing discount, consistent with established practice under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
  • Where a likely sentence falls within two years, referral for ICO assessment remains an available pathway, including in cases involving commercial-style drug supply connected to the offender's own dependency.
  • Compliance with court-imposed bail conditions during a section 11 adjournment, including drug testing and engagement with mental health treatment, formed the factual foundation for the court's decision to pursue an alternative to full-time imprisonment.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), section 11 (adjournment for rehabilitation); provisions governing Intensive Corrections Orders

Cases:
No cases were cited in the judgment.