Rioli v The Queen

The appellant, Rioli, appealed against a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge for supplying cannabis to a child. The child, who was 15 years old, resided in an Aboriginal community and was also a cannabis user. The appellant, aged 46, supplied the child with cannabis on three occasions between June and September 2009, during which time they also engaged in sexual intercourse. The sentencing judge was required to consider the mandatory minimum term of 28 days imprisonment under s 37(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) due to the appellant's prior conviction for possessing a dangerous drug.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the mandatory minimum term, and whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the appellant's subjective circumstances and mitigating factors. The court was required to determine if the sentencing judge erred in their assessment of the seriousness of the offences and the appropriate penalty, considering the specific context of the Aboriginal community and the appellant's personal history.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reasoned that while the supply of cannabis to a child in an Aboriginal community was a serious offence, and the sentencing judge was correct to highlight the detrimental impact of cannabis in such communities, the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors. The court noted the appellant's remorse, his proactive steps towards rehabilitation by ceasing cannabis use and engaging with a support program, his long history of employment, and his good standing within his community. The sentencing judge had placed considerable weight on denunciation and general deterrence, referencing previous appellate decisions on the gravity of cannabis supply offences in Aboriginal communities. However, the Court of Appeal found that the mandatory minimum sentence, combined with the sentencing judge's emphasis on these factors, resulted in a sentence that was too severe given the appellant's personal circumstances and the absence of any suggestion that the cannabis was supplied in return for sexual favours.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was set aside. The Court of Criminal Appeal imposed a sentence of 28 days imprisonment, suspended immediately upon the appellant entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for 12 months.