Debra Janet Rickwood v The Queen Javier Francisco Gomez v The Queen

[1982] FCA 73

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
'I
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	5
) No. ACT G 2 7 of 1 9 8 1
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
>
GENERAL DIVISION	j

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPRI3lE COURT OF

:

BETWEEN :  DEBRA JANET RICKWOOD

Appel lant

AND :  THE QUEEN

Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:  Fox, Kelly and E l l i c o t t JJ

DATE OF ORDER:	- 7 b1AY 1982
WHERE MADE :	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appea l ga ins t t he s n t ence o f t h r e e y e a r s

imprisonment be dismissed.

2 . Otherwise the appeal be a l lowed and the order

f i x i n g a non-paro le per iod o f eighteen months

be s e t a s i d e .

3 . In l i e u o f t h a t o r d e r , o r d e r t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

be r e l eased on 14 May 1 9 8 2 upon he r En te r ing

i n t o a r ecogn izance in the sum of $250 wi th

o n e s u r e t y i n t h e same amount, the recognizance

t o be c o n d i t i o n e d t h a t :

she be of good behaviour f o r a

per iod o f two yea r s and t h r e e

months	from	1 4 May	1 9 8 2 ;
d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d	o f	two	y e a r s

and three months she be subjec t to

t h e s u p e r v i s i o n on probat ion of

the Director of Welfare of the

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y o r

such person as hc may from time t o

t i m e i n w r i t i n g a p p o i n t ;

she	obey	a l l	r e a s o n a b l e d i r e c t i o n s
o f	t h e s a i d D i r e c t o r	o r	any person

s o	appointed	by him;
she adv i se	the sa id Di rec to r	o f
Welfare	o €	t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l

T e r r i t o r y o f any change i n h e r

address or occupat ion wi th in seven

days of the changc.

4 . The ma t t e r be r mi t t ed t ohe Supreme Court f o r

t he	execu t ion	o € t h e s e	o r d e r s .	Thc	recognizance
may be	taken before	a	J u s t i c e	o f	the Peace

accustomed t o do s o under orders of tha t Cour t .

>

IN THE FEDERkL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

I

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	j
) No. ACT G 2 7 of 1951
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 1
GENERAL DIVISION	j

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

'THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN :  DEBRA JANET RICKWOOD

Appel lant

AND :  THE QUEEN

Respondent

Coram:  Fox, Kel ly and El l ico t t JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FOX, KELLY and ELLICOTT JJ.

The a p p e l l a n t was sentenced by t h e Suprcme

Cour t o f thc Aus t ra l ian Capi ta l Territory t o t h r e c y e a r s

imprisonment with a non-paro le per iod o f elghteen months

a f t e r p l e a d i n g g u i l t y t o a charge under s . 4 ( 3 ) o f t h e

Poisons and Narcotic Drug Ordinance 1 9 7 5 (the "Ordinance")

of	possess	ing	hero	in	for	the purpose of supply ing	it	t o
anothcr	person.	She had	ac t ed	i n	conce r t	w i th	onc	J a v i e r

Francisco Gomez i n ob ta in ing he ro in from onc Bozo Jurkovic

fo r t ha t pu rpose . Ju rkov ic , cha rged w i th a s i m i l a r

of fence as wel l as wi th adminis te r ing hcro in to h imsel f ,

pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced	to €ive
years imprisonment with	a non-parole period of two and a
half years on the charge	o f possession and to imprison-

ment for onc year, to be scrved concurrently, on the charge o f adminlsterlng the drug to himself. Gomez,

charged with a similar offence, a l so plcaded guilty and was

sentenced to f o u r years imprisonment with a non-parole

period of two years.

Jurkovic appealed against sentence to this delivered on 23 December 1981 by Fox J thc appeal was allowed and a sentence of €our years with a non-parole period o f twenty-one months was substituted for that Court. For the reasons set out in the leading judgment

imposed by the learned sentencing Judge. Thcre is no need

for us to repeat the discussion and reasons, in which we

all agreed, contained in his Honour's judgment in that

case. They should be treated as being incorporated into

our rcasons in this case.

,In the present case, we do not think that the

head scntence imposed by the learned sentencing Judge was,

in the circumstances, cxcessive or unduly severc. Indeed,

we think that, having regard to all the circumstances of

the offence and the appellant's background, it was an

entirely proper sentence. The appellant had had no prior

convictions but w e do not think it proper, for the reasons

given in Jurkovic's case; to ignore ttc fact that she had

c

an admitted history of drug taking.

c

We also think that the scntence imposed was

adequately retributive and that it was of such a nature

as to constitute a sufficient deterrent.

It is in its reformative aspect that, in our

view, his Honour's sentencc was excessive. In the

appeal of Jurkovic it was said that -

"In forming its assessment the Court will
take account o f long term as well as short
term considerations. Reform or improverncnt

while imprisoned is important for the sake

of both the country and the individual."

Upon her arrest on 4 December 1980, the

appellant immediately ceased taking drugs	and has not
taken any since.	She continued her studies, demonstrating

a capacity to take an honours degree and the potential to

attain her goal of graduating eventually as a Doctor of

Philosophy. She	has, while imprisoned, continued her
studies although, not surprisingly, she	as not obtained
the results which might have	b en expected, given her

high intelligence and obvious capacity for work. She is

presently attending the University of	New South Nales on
what appears to be	a type o€ work-relcase programme with

considerable restriction of her freedom o f movement and

association. We note that, having once in the past
stopped using drugs, she subsequently relapsed into taking
them. The evidence dcmonstrates however a sustained and
determined effort to rcform.

think that in the particular circGmstances the learned sentencing Judge failed to take into account

We

- . . I ..l .. - ~ ..

I a-. ,I *.. ,-P. .. ._ .

f u l l y	t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s e f f o r t s	t o r e f o r m	and	the need	fo r
c a r e a n d a s s i s t a n c e ,	i n	a	non-custodial	a tmosphere,	i f a

r e l a p s e i s t o be	avoided.	The non-pa ro le	pc	r	iod	f i xcd
would,	as	we	understand	i t ,	have mean t he r r e l ease a t	a

t ime not fa r shor t o f tha t Ichen ,wi th rcmiss ions , she might

have been rcleased completely i n any event and WC con-

s i d e r t h a t i n	a l l	the c i rcumstances	i t	should be	shortened.
The	non-paro le per iod f ixed demonst ra tes	tha	t	degree	of

e r ro r which, i n our v iew, permi ts an appel la te Cour t to

in t e rvene t o va ry t he s en tence imposed . I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e ,

t o o , t o u s e t h e f l e x i b l e p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n s.55GB

of	the	Crimes	Act	1 9 0 0	(as amended)	o f	t h e S t a t c o f	New
South	Wales	i n	i t s	a p p l i c a t i o n	t o	t h e T e r r i t o r y .	We	a r c

conce rned pa r t i cu la r ly tha t t he appe l l an t shou ld have

s u p p o r t i n h e r e f f o r t s t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h e r s e l f , t h e more s o

s ince she has dcmonst ra ted oncc tha t in appropr ia te c i rcum-

s t ances she can r e l apse a f t e r appa rcn t r e fo rm.

We propose to conf i rm the sen tence of th ree

years impr isonment but to vary the res t of t he o rde r made

by the learned sentenclng Judge.

We i n d i c a t e d t h e a t c o n c l u s i o n f

t h e h c a r i n g t h a t WC propose t o o rde r t ha t t hc sen tence be

suspended from a t ime about nine months af ter i t s commcnce-

men t , sub jec t t o cond i t Those

i p n s n o t t h c n - - G X a % e d .

J

IN THE	F131lEML	COURT	OF AUSTFLILIA	)
-l

AUSTRALTAN CAPITAL TERRITORY j ) No. ACT G 2 o f 19SZ

R E G I S T R Y	D I S T R I C T	1
1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N ?. 1

- ON ASPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAX CAPITTL TERRITORY

BETWEEN :  J A V I E R F R A N C l S C O GOMEZ

Appel lant

AND :  QU EN THE

Respondent

O R D E R

S MAKING ORDER: Fox, K e l l y a n d E l l i c o t t JJ

-

DATE OF ORDER:  -- - 7 MAY 1982

WHERE IrMDE :	Canberra
-	_ _

TI-IE C@llU ORDERS THAT:

1. The appca l ga lns t t he s n t ence o f f o u r y e a r s

i m p r ~ sonmcnt be dismissed.

2 . Otherwise thc appcal hc a1 1o\\cd ancl t he o rde r

f i x i n g a	non-pa ro le pe r iod	of	t\<o y e a r s be	s e t
a s i d e .

4 3 . I n l i e u o i t h a t o r d e r t h c a p p e l l a n t be r c l e a s c d

on 1 4 November 1 9 8 2 upon h i s e n t e r m g i n t o a

r ecogn izance in the sum o f $ 2 5 0 with one

s u r e t y o i t h e same amount, the recognizance

4

t o be cond l t ioned tha t :

(a) he bc o f good bchav jour fo r a

pe r lod o f two ycars and n ine

months f rom 1 4 Novcmber 1 9 8 2 ;

( b ) d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d of two yea r s

and	n ine months he be subjec t	to
t h c s u p e r v j s i o n	on	probat ion under

t h e D i r e c t o r o i Welfare o f t h e

. 4 u s t r a l l a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y o r

such person as he may from t ime to

t i m e i n w r i t i n g a p p o l n t ;

(c) he obey a l l r c a s o n a b l e d i r c c t i o n s

o C t h e s a i d D i r e c t o r o r any person

s o appointed by him.

(d) he a d v i s e t h e s a i d D i r e c t o r o f

Nc l f a re o i t h c A u s t r a l l a n C a p l t a l

T e r r i t o r y	of	any change In hls
address	o r	occupat ion wl th in seven

days o f making i t .

4 . The ma t t c r be r e m i t t e d t o t h e Supreme Court f o r

thc execut lon o f t h e s e o r d e r s . Thc rccognizance

may be taken before a J u s t l c e o i the Peace

.- c

accustomed to do s o under orders o f t ha t Cour t .

I N THE FEDER4L COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	j
1 No. ACT G 2 of 196.2.
DISTRICT REGISTRY	j

h 1

GENEPAL DIVISION 1

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL J ' E R R I T O r i k -

BETKEEN :  JAVIER FRANCISCO GOMEZ

Appel lant

AND : TIIE QUEEN -

Respondent

Coram:  Fox, K e l l y a n d E l l i c o t t JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FOX, KELLY and ELJ,JCOTT J J .

The a p p e l l a n t was sentenced on 1 4 August 1 9 6 1

bp t h e Supreme Court o f t h c A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l Territory

t o f o u r y e a r s imprisonment with a non-paro le p e r l o d o f

two y e a r s a f t e r p l e a d i n g g u l l t y t o a charge under s . 4 ( 3 )

o f the Polsons and Narcot lc Drug Ordinance 1 9 7 6 ( t h e

"Ordinance") of possessing hero in f o r t h e purpose of

supplying i t to another	pcrson.	There	were	two	o t h e r s
i n v o l v e d I n	t h e	i n c i d e n t s o u t	of	which	t h e c h a r g e a r o s e .

2. One, Bozo Jurkovic , charged wi th a s i m i l a r o f f e n c e a s well

a s w i t h a d m l n i s t e r i n g h e r o i n t o h i m s e l f , p l e a d e d g u i l t y

to both charges and was sen tenced to f ive yea r s impr i son-

h

ment with a n o n - p a r o l e p e r ~ o d o f two and a h a l f y e a r s on

the cha rge o f possess lon and to ~mpr isonment f o r one ycar ,

t o be se rved concur ren t ly , on the cha rge o i admin i s t e r ing

t h e d r u g t o h i m s e l f . The o the r , Debra J ane t Rickwood,

a l so charged wi th a s imi l a r o f f ence , p l eaded gu l l ty and

was	sen tenced	to	three	years	impr isonment wi th	a	non-paro le
pe r iod	o f	eighteen	months.	Both	Jurkovlc	and	Rlckwood

a p p e a l e d a g a i n s t s c n t e n c e t o t h i s C o u r t . F o r t h c outcome

of	those	appca ls	re ference	i s madc	t o	t h e	r e a s o n s € o r
judgment del ivered	t h ~ s	day	i n r e s p e c t	oi	the	appcal	hy
Rlckwood.

'The a p p e l l a n t made an a p p l i c a t l o n f o r l e a v e t o

appea l ou t o i t ime. The Crom d id no t oppose the

a p p l i c a t i o n , which was gran ted .

We do no t t h ink t h e head sentence lmposed b y t h e

l ea rned sen tenc ing .Judgc was i n any way excess ive o r unduly

scve re t\hen r ega rd IS had t o a l l t h c c i r c u m s t a n c c s o f t h c

o f i e n c e a n d t h e p a s t r e c o r d o i t h e a p p e l l a n t . We th lnk

t h a t t h e s e n t e n c c d e a l t a d e q u a t e l y w i t h t h e r e t r i h u t i v c

and de tcr ren t aspcc ts of sen tcnc ing .

Howcver, the evidence given on beha l€ o f t he

a p p e l l a n t	i n t h e	Supremc	Court	01	t h e A u s t r a l i a n	C a p i t a l
Te r r i t o ry , wh ich	was	no t	cha l l enged ,	shows	an	impresslve

..

a t t empt on h i s p a r t t o r e f o r m . I t dernonstratcs an unusual

c o n c e r n f o r o t h e r s . I t d e m o n s t r a t e s , t o o , a capac i ty

f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . WC a r e s a t i s f i e d , i n t h c l i g h t o i

%

t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e r e f o r m a t i v e a s p e c t of sen tenc ing

should jn the c l rcumstances have p layed a l a r g e r p a r t

than it d i d	i n	t h e	Supreme	Court .	#e	t h i n k	j t app ropr i a t c
i n	t h i s c a s e , a s	i n	t h e c a s e	o f	Rickwood,	t ha t u sc be	made

of t h e f l e x i b l e p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n s .556B of the

Crimes Act 1 9 0 0 ( a s amended) o f t h e S t a t e o f New South

Wales In i t s a p p l i c a t l o n t o t h c T e r r i t o r y .

We propose to conf l rm the sen tence o i [our

years impr isonment but to vary thc res t o f the order madc

by the l ea rned s en tenc ing Judge . WC t h i n k i t appropr i a t e

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t b e r c l e a s e d a f t e r s e r v l n g a p e r i o d o f

f i f t e e n mon ths p rov ided he en te r s i n to an appropr i a t c ly

condi t joncd recognizance to be of good bchaviour f o r a

pc r iod o r two years and nine months. This will have the

e I f e c t o f enab l ing him t o be r e l c a s e d a t a time when he

can make a d e q u a t e u n h u r r i e d p r e p a r a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e h i s

educa t lon .