Jim Christodoulou.
Jim Christodoulou.

Man sent to jail after spending inheritance on drugs

A MAN who spent thousands of his inheritance money on marijuana and pleaded guilty to possessing dangerous drugs will spend the next few months behind bars.

Despite contesting the sentence for any claims of commerciality to his drug charge, Judge William Everson was unconvinced by Jim Christodoulou's testament that the drugs were for personal use during cross examination in the Bundaberg District Court yesterday.

Judge Everson sentenced Christodoulou, 59, to nine months imprisonment with a parole release date of December 11, 2019.

On December 11, 2018 police executed a search warrant at Christodoulou's Bargara home and found 1.422kg of cannabis in a number of containers, including 12 clip sealed bags of various weights, scales and $2340 in $5 notes.

The court heard that Christodoulou bought three pounds of marijuana, at $2500 per pound, with money he inherited after his mother died and was using the drugs as a means to alleviate pain from a back injury he sustained after falling from a horse.

Judge Everson said Christodoulou alleged that he used the green cannabis material to distil for oil and the scales were used for processing it in this regard. "You claim to bag the cannabis up before you process it in quantities … you consume approximately 2g of cannabis a day and you claim that you bought, what the prosecution submits is a two-year supply of cannabis, because it's cheaper to buy it in bulk," he said.

" … You were the only person who gave evidence on your behalf and I found your evidence completely unconvincing." Judge Everson was unsatisfied with the defendant's claim for the $5 notes simply being a means of his saving change over the years and that it was by coincidence that the divided quantities of marijuana roughly corresponded to amounts that were generally commercially supplied amounts.

"I found your evidence fanciful and I found you to be a witness who lacked veracity …," he said.

Judge Everson said while it was submitted that there was no evidence of text messages or tick sheets and the quantities can be explained by purchasing it in bulk, there was "nonetheless, in my view, overwhelming evidence of commerciality and coupled with your particularly unimpressive evidence as to try to explain away what, for all intensive purposes appear to be a commercial operation, I find your explanation completely without merit".