Bridle v Verity - [2011] NTSC 107

Bridle v Verity [2011] NTSC 107
PARTIES: BRIDLE, Sarah Ann

v
VERITY, Brett Justin

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   JA 11 0f 2011 (21015270)
DELIVERED:   22 December 2011
HEARING DATES:   27 July, 10 October 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   BLOKLAND J
APPEAL FROM:   Mr Trigg SM
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – MISUSE OF DRUGS – APPEAL - Appeal against findings of guilt and sentence.
Findings of Guilt - could the factual findings form the basis of criminal responsibility under the Criminal Code (NT) – regard to the definition of ‘offer to supply’ and ‘agreement to supply’ – offer to supply in the Northern Territory context means the acts comprising the offer must be proven to be intended – given His Honours findings of fact there is no question intention has been proven – must also be proven an accused intends or foresees as a possible consequence that the offeree believes the offer is true – s 31 of Criminal Code (NT) does not add a further element that the intention must be found to include an intention that the substance in reality was a prohibited drug – physical elements are complete at the time of the genuine offer – dismiss ground 5 of the appeal
Manifestly Excessive – Appellate court interferes with sentence only if it can be shown that the sentencing Judge was in error in acting on a wrong principle or in misunderstanding or in wrongly assessing some salient feature of the evidence – the presumption is that there is no error – had the learned Magistrate taken into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances – the scenarios described by the learned Magistrate indicate an assessment of the gravity of the offending that is disproportionate to the appellant’s offending – It is concluded that error sufficient to attract appellate intervention has been established – Appeal against sentence allowed.
Re-sentencing and conviction – balancing the seriousness of the offending with the personal factors a conviction bond is the appropriate sentence
Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) s 5(1), s 5(2), 40(b),
Criminal Code (NT) s 1, s 31, s 103A,
Territory Parks and Conversation Act s 29,
Sentencing Act s 8(1),

Dendic & Mazzeo v R (1987) 34 A Crim R 40; R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386; followed
Addison v R (1993) 70 A Crim R 213; Gokel v Gualandi (2011) 11 NTLR 71; Gunn v Howie [2006] NTSC 21; Hales v Adams [2005] NTSC 86; Peirce v The Queen (1994) 90 A Crim R 134; considered
Barnes v Westphal (2008) 22 NTLR 236; Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2002 (2002) 12 NTLR 176; Nason v O’Brien (unreported) NTSC 19 June 1991; Pregelj and Wurramura v Manison (1987) 31 A Crim R 383; R v Swan (2003) 140 A Crim R 243; Tran v Scammel (unreported) NTSC No 19 of 1993; referred to

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bridle v Verity

Details

AGLC: Bridle v Verity [2011] NTSC 107
Case: [2011] NTSC 107
Decision Date: 22/12/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bridle v Verity [2011] NTSC 107 involved an appeal against findings of guilt and sentence by Sarah Ann Bridle, who was convicted of three counts of unlawfully supplying MDMA to an undercover police operative. The appeal was heard by Blokland J in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The central legal issues concerned the interpretation of the Criminal Code (NT) in relation to the offence of offering to supply a dangerous drug, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Regarding the findings of guilt, the court had to determine whether the factual findings could form the basis of criminal responsibility under the Criminal Code (NT). The court held that the learned Magistrate's findings of fact, which established that the appellant intended to offer to supply a substance she believed to be ecstasy, were sufficient to establish the offence under the Criminal Code. The court found that the intention to offer and the belief by the offeree that the offer was true were the key elements required, without needing to prove the substance was actually a prohibited drug.

As for the sentence, the court assessed whether the learned Magistrate had erred in imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive. The court found that while the learned Magistrate correctly regarded the offending as serious, the scenarios used to emphasize the gravity of the offending were disproportionate to the appellant's actual offending. The court concluded that the sentence was excessive and warranted appellate intervention.

In re-sentencing, the court considered the seriousness of the offending alongside the appellant's personal circumstances, including her age, prior good character, and aspirations to join the Navy. The court decided that a conviction bond was the appropriate sentence, balancing the need for deterrence with the appellant's personal factors.

The final orders were: the appeal against the findings of guilt was dismissed; the appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence was quashed; and the appellant was convicted on counts 1, 2, and 3 and placed on a good behaviour bond of $1,000.00 for 12 months.

Orders