Regina, J.R. v The Queen

[1985] FCA 532

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY) NO. NT G ~ O o

) . '

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA )

ON APPEAL F R O M THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN :

JOSEPH RICHARD REGINA

Applicant

m:

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT: The appellant was convicted, followlng a plea of

guilty, of a charge of possession of cannabis for the purpose of

supply contrary to s.66(2) (c) of the Poisons and Danqerous Druqs

Act of the Northern Territory.

The appellant was sentenced to a term of 18 months

imprisonment with hard labour and the trial Judge fixed a

non-parole period of 12 months. The appellant contends that the

sentence was in all the circumstances manifestly excessive. By

implication this is zn attack on the head sentence for the

grounds of appeal .. . also contend that the non-parole period of 12

.

months was manifestly excessive and also that it was the same as

the sentence the appellant would serve with full remission for

L

good behaviour.

The Crown does not oppose the appeal so far as it

relates to the non-parole period. The Crown accepts, in

a&ordance with a number of authorities, that a non-parole period

should provide a convicted person with an incentive to be of good

behaviour so as to gain release on parole before the normal

remission date. In the Crown's submission, a non-parole period

of nine months would provide that incentive and would bear a reasonable relation to the head sentence of 18 months. We agree with those submissions, assuming the head sentence stands.

As to the head sentence, s.81(l)(b) of the Poisons and

Danqerous Druqs Act prescribes imprisonment for 7 years in the

case of a first offence against 5 . 6 6 ( 2 ) , imprisonment for 15

years for a second offence and imprisonment for 25 years for a third or subsequent offence. It is apparent that the legislature regards a convlction for possession of cannabis for the purpose

of supply to another person as a serious matter. T h ~ s was a

first relevant conviction though the appellant had convictions

for other offences.

In the view of the Court the sentence of 18 months

imprisonment imposed by the trial Judge was not excessive nor did

his Honour err in law in any way. Counsel for the appellant

_-.

- 3 -

criticised a comment by the trial Judge that the appellant was

out to make a living 6y his criminal activities. It was further

!l

submitted on behalf of the appellant that he made no profit from

those activities. But on his own admisslon the appellant was

engaged in a commercial enterprise in that he agreed to sell

cannabis for another in the hotels in Tennant Creek. Apparently

the value of the cannabis was in excess of $5,000.

The courts have on many occasions expressed the

seriousness with which they regard offences of dealing In drugs.

In the present case the trial Judge said that, but for the plea

of guilty and admissions made by the appellant at his committal,

he would have imposed a sentence of 2 years imprisonment or

thereabouts but that he gave the appellant credit "for owning up

at the very early stage in those proceedings".

Other than in relation to the non-parole period, the

appellant has not demonstrated any error in principle on the part

of the trial Judge nor has he shown that the sentence was so

manifestly excessive as to indicate some error in the sentencing

process. The non-parole period should be altered to one of nlne

months but otherwise the appeal should be dismissed.

I certify thac this and the d/ preceding

pages are a true copy of thc reasons for

judgment herein of the Court