Brodie, Suzanne Louise v The Queen - [1977] FCA 59

I ‘ i

appeal from the

Supreme Court of

the Northern Terr i tory

HE"l7ZF.;i

: ... S.UVjkVT. .&QSrTS.Fi

.BPPP.XQ ....

........ ........ ........ ......

Appellant

........ ........ ........ ........

Ait3

........ ........ ........ ........ .

THE

QUEEN

........ ........ ........ ........

Respondent

........ ........ ........ ........

O R D E R

. . . . . . . .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

F AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH VALES DISTRICT EGISTRY 1	NO. G53 of 1977
GEIEFWL DIVISION

On appeal

from the Supreme Court

the Northeri Territory

BETTEEN :

SUZANNE

LOUISE

BRODIE

i '

Appellant

AND:

TIB QUEEN

Respondent

CORAI\I: BOI'i'EN C. J. , FRANK1 AND TOOHEY JJ.

14th	September, 1977

J U D G M E N T

The appellant, Suzarme Louise Brodie, pursuant to

leave, brings an appeal against the severity

of a sentence

imposed in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

Miss Brodie and Mitchell Paul Conlan were charged

u t h offences under the provisions of s.233B of the Customs

Act 1901. Initially, pleas

of not guilty were entered by both

accused but after extensive arguments as to the admlssion of

certain evidence, and

in particular a record of interview

with the appellant,

Mu.. Conlan pleaded guilty to

a charge of bemg

knowingly concerned

In the importation

of heroin contrary to the

provisions of s.233B(l)(d)

of the Act and also to

a charge of

- 2 -

possess ion of hero in cont ra ry to the provls ions of s .B33B(l ) (ca) .

The

appel lan t p leaded not gu i l ty to both charges

and

the ju ry acqu i t t ed he r

upon

the charge of being knowingly

concerned i n the importat ion

but convicted her upon the charge

of	possession of heroin.

is common

ground

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

was

born on

27th Novei~~ber 1957

and

had

pr ior convict ions of any klnd.

' !

She had

l e f t s c h o o l when aged 16, obtained work,

and continued

t o l i v e with her parents near Newcastle

until

approximately

August 1975. Then,

unable

t o o b t a i n

s a t i s f a c t o r y

employmen-c

i n Newcastle, she

came

t o Sydney t o l i v e first vuth h e r

grandmother and

l a t e r she sha red

f l a t with

ano the r g i r l .

During the t ime when she was i n Sydney, she

met Mr.Conlan, who

was

then 24 years

o f

age.

had

two

p r i o r c o n v l c t i o n s i n

r e spec t or"

the possession of marijuana

and

one

f o…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brodie, Suzanne Louise v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1977] FCA 59
Decision Date: 14 Sep 1977

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Federal Court was brought by Suzanne Louise Brodie against the severity of a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Brodie, along with Mitchell Paul Conlan, was charged under the Customs Act 1901 for offences related to the importation and possession of heroin. Conlan pleaded guilty, while Brodie maintained her innocence and was acquitted of the importation charge but convicted of possession. The legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a sentence on Brodie that was deemed excessive. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge's discretion in sentencing was sound and reasonable, particularly given the disparity in sentences between Brodie and Conlan.

The Federal Court held that the trial judge's discretion in sentencing was neither miscarried nor unsound. The court emphasised that it would not interfere with the trial judge's sentencing unless it was demonstrated that the judge's discretion was exercised in an unreasonable or unsound manner. The court noted that the trial judge had given full effect to Brodie's acquittal on the importation charge and had considered various relevant factors in determining the sentence, including Brodie's age, background, sex, and the influence of Conlan. The Federal Court further clarified that the non-parole period was a crucial element of the sentence, serving both as a deterrent and a measure of appropriate detention. Given the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence in drug-related crimes, the court found that the sentence imposed was justified. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial judge's sentence.

Orders