Rich, Alan Michael & Anor v. The Queen [1981] FCA 146

Rich, Alan Michael & Anor v. The Queen [1981] FCA 146

Although the eight-year head sentences were severe, no error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion was shown, particularly given the seriousness of importing and possessing heroin for commercial dealing and the importance of deterrence. However, the five-year non-parole periods were not duly proportioned to the eight-year head sentences and were not necessitated by the offences and antecedents. Because remission would leave little practical scope for parole, and because supervised release with an opportunity for drug treatment was in the public interest, the non-parole periods had to be reduced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 1981
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia
Outcome
Appeals against the head sentences dismissed; appeals allowed as to the non-parole periods, which were reduced.
Legal Topics
['importation and Possession of Prohibited Drug' 'heroin' 'non Parole Period' 'parole' 'remissions' 'drug Addiction and Rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'customs and Excise' 'sentencing'] ['importation and Possession of Prohibited Drug' 'heroin' 'non Parole Period' 'parole' 'remissions' 'drug Addiction and Rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Severity of Sentence / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the head sentences of eight years imprisonment with hard labour were manifestly excessive or showed error in the sentencing discretion.' 'Whether the minimum non-parole periods of five years were duly proportioned to the head sentences and justified by the offences and antecedents of the appellants.' 'Whether the sentencing orders should allow a reasonable opportunity for parole supervision and treatment for drug addiction before release into the community.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the eight-year head sentences were severe, no error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion was shown, particularly given the seriousness of importing and possessing heroin for commercial dealing and the importance of deterrence. However, the five-year non-parole periods were not duly proportioned to the eight-year head sentences and were not necessitated by the offences and antecedents. Because remission would leave little practical scope for parole, and because supervised release with an opportunity for drug treatment was in the public interest, the non-parole periods had to be reduced.

Court Disposition

Appeals against the head sentences dismissed; appeals allowed as to the non-parole periods, which were reduced.

Orders

  • ['The head sentences of eight years imprisonment with hard labour remain.' 'The orders fixing minimum non-parole periods of five years are set aside.' 'Rich is not eligible to be released on parole until he has served three years and six calendar months of the sentence of eight years passed upon him.' 'Bourke, on...