Criminal law - appeal against inadequacy of sentences ~ convictions of murder against 3 Aboriginal women - relationship between ss. 6(1C) and 6A of Criminal Law Consolidation Act - absence of evidence of native law or custom for purposes of s.6A of Act no bar to discretion of Court under s.6(1C) - 11fe imprisonment available - sentences for murder to be just and proper in the circumstances ~ relevant considerations in mitigation Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) Criminal Law Consolidation Act (NT) ss. 5, 6A, 6(1C) TIM QUEEN v. PAMELA NANGALA SAMPSON, RHODA WURRAWILYA, NGAIRE HERBERT No. NIG 22, 23, 24 of 1983 FORSTER, TOOHEY & FITZGERALD JJ. DARWIN 11 APRIL 1984 iN THE TEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NORTHERN TERRITOFRY Or AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SENEPAL DIVISION No. bad TE 22, 23, 24 of 1983 weer sy ON APPLAL Crom the Supreme Courl of the Northern Terrilory of Australia 3ETWEEW HT QUECIN Appeliant and PAMELA NANGALA SAMPSON, RHODA WURRAWILYA, NGAIRE HERBERT Resnondents QO R D_E R CUDGES FAKING ORDER 3 Torster, Toohey & Fitzgerald JJ. DATE OF ORDER : 2 April 168" WITERE MADE : Darwin THE COURT ORDI-PS THA't': I. The appeals be dasmissed, i Pd THE FEVSRAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NORTHERN "ERRITORY OP AUSTRALTA ) DISTRICT REGTSTRY ) SENCRAI, DIVISION ) No. NTG 22, 23, 24 of 1983 ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Hoy Lherp Territory of Australia BETWOEN THI QULCT.N Appellent and PAMELA NANGALA SAMPSON, RHODA WURTAVILLYA, NGAIRI. IITRBER? Respondents COPA: Torsler, Toohey & T1itceerald JJ. > Anorwl 19e4 RUASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT At the conclusion of the anpeliant's argument the Court dismissed Ehesc apeals and stated thal at would give reasons for its decision at a later date. 'These are our The reaponderts am: young Aboriginal women. Cn Ll Mareh 1983 each was convieled 3.2 Lhe Supreme Court of the herthern Territery of the murder of dan Drasxoveic on 29 May l'82. Cc By reason (now repraled by the Crininal C Aci the penally Sar mare wis imprisonment fer Life with havi labour. Yowever, a.5 nas subject fo the oller preevisions of "he Criminal Law Cansolivzer ort Ach. sub-ureetion 6CIC) pad "Where in aborigina?t 15 corvictead of urd sr, the judge may impose such penally as, having regare to all the civcumslances of lhe case, appears to him te be jus! and preper". Tn exerviss: of rhe diserction conferred on him by tlat provision, the learned trial audge ser tenced each of the reepondents Foo impriteuaent with hard labour [or a tern of 12 years and in eech case fixed a non-carole pariod of & years and 6 monlhs. The Crown contended that, in the circumcetarers, thase sentences were inadequate, Before turniig Lo Fhe cipeumstances of Lhe murder Zt should be noteu that the respondents were convicted on a re-trial. On 30 Xerober 1981 they were convicled of murder and sentences of |i fe imorisonment were imposed on 10 Novenber 19812. Gn appeal fo this Courr, the convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered. Herbert, Sampson anc Wurrevilva v. R. (1922) 4? ALR 631. The respondents were arrested in carly Tune 1931 and have necn in custody sinee. Counsel for the recpondent*s invaled the learned trial Judge to make the sentences oorrative fvoam the dates of arrests: his Honcur decsined on the ground thar it wac not open to him to do so. Nevertheless he took into eccount that at the time he was Sunbencing tie respondents they nad been an custody for almoes| years and 2 pont, Fooled ues or the Criminal Law Consolidalion Act 1ac) Crate In reality then each head sentence invoeiver imprssenmont Fou a term af more than TW voar., and e:eh none sarod orient ao bon of vearly & {04S "ollLowing Lhe eonvietton of Lhe mespondenls, his Nonour heard evidenes and cubmissie ns from counsel over 3 days amt tet Ts apoureat from the quite lengthy reasens for sentences thal his Ihonwur gave careful corisideration to what was clearly a difficult matter. he ecipeun tances surrounding the murder of Jan Draskoveio wero stark ant brulat. Mueh ot the ture spent before [he learned Irial juage on the matter of suntences was aimed at »roviding some explanation for what had happcned. Before turning to thal aspect of the matter, 1¢ is recessary la sar oul tle obieelive facks surrounding Lhe death. Shorlly afler 3 pm on the eveniig of 29 May 1921 the responacenls were tu a aisuscd beer parden of the Para> Hotel. Tach was substantially affected sy atcohol, having been drinking Lhroughoul most of Lhe day. The deceased was a o/ year old man who had lose his right lep and who wore a L Drace with an artificial leg attached to it. He was well Faown Lo 'he pespondents. He had drunk with *them on other reeactors aud Fhe pe po ident . Ngai Herbert and Pamela Sampso. were @rin<ing with him in the beer garden shortly before his eeoath. The Crown cane wan thal lane resvondcents, in furtherance of a commen design, or with an individual 1atenLlion to kill or te 1ifliet grievous bodily harm, struck Ip. Draskoveiec ebout the head with a teavy iran pipe. Te was steel al least & blow. neomorprsing auc [eas chan 6 blows to the b.ck of the head, ene major blow to the pight cf the head, one to the right eyebrow and ane bea rhe box at Fhe hea . Tour of those blows were struck by Rhoda Wurrawilva, (wo by Pamela Samosen and two by Ngaire Herbert. in the words of the Learned trial judge, "il wis a heinous erime, committed with great wal> visu and brutality". The Crown case was thal the melive For che attach yao rohnery and, in his Honour's words, "there was certainly more than a Little cvidence to suggest that that was sa". The respondents. asserted that the attack was brought about by the dee ased's reLerence Lo Wurrawilya as a "slut" and a "black bileh™. "is Yoneur vas unable to conelude thet there was any elear motive for the kil!ing on the parz of any one of the respondents. Ile said: "Rather, Lor Lhe purnose of ante ther, I prefer to take the view more Favourable to them that the attack was preeipitared by some offensive words such a6 3 hive mentioned spoken by the deceased Lo Rhoda, aided perhaps by the refusal by the deeeased of a request for money by them. 'Therc is no doubl, however, Chat Vhatever paiyssons of ange" or pesintmenl were aroused in the prisoners, [hey were inflamed Ly ire amount of alechol that each of them had had to drini". &G a a va Before the learned trial judge and before this Courl a submission wes mtde on behalf cf tn> Crown that the apparently broad diserelion conferred by sub-s.4(1C) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act was conerolled by the provisions OF ofA oF That Act. That seelion peaa. "Top The purpose af determining the nalvupe and extent of the penalty to be imposed whete an aberigine 1s convicted of murder, tre cour shall receive and consider «ny evidence which may ve Londered as lu any reljevarl native law or cuslom and 1ts application !9 the Pach, ol Lhe ease and any evidence which may he tendered in miljgation of penatly". The submis.ion was that s.6A controlled and _inited sub-s."(1C) by rejuirine evidence of some relevant native Jer Ww oe aublorn be Fane the diserecbion arose Fo impose a senienese loos tran thar o* imprisonment wilh herd labour. TL S fee a corellery of thal submissien tnat in lhe absence of some relevanl native lay er custom a scentenee of Life imrriconmen wae omateabory., Th was durtheor argued thal the power vested - the eourl by tA fo reeeive and consider cvidehee in aitigation of penalry onty arow where there vac evidence 2 some "relevent nalive jaw or custom end ivs application to he facts ob the aaa. The learned crial yudse rajyecled those submissions and, in our view, rightly se. There wis 2 clear reletior ship q betwecn 3.608 and sub-s.8010) but nol ri the cense that the Forrer contrors the latler. Sub-section 6(1C), ir its terms, conterred acdeseme don oan Flee qugpe ce wmimese sien srenaltyv ag appeared ta him Jacl ami prepoer "having pega lo all tee ecireumotances AF The cane" P'ore havd bo amagine a diseretiran conferred an widss repms. Seefion bA renoved any doubt there nich NIVG@ seer AP * 2 yew pat ths court bo os zecave and consider eviderr bu. of nal ve Taw or custom where relevant end applicable *o the Paets at oath eag . Thowig a power voglerd in the ceurk far the purnese of determin ag tie mature and ealert of the penally to be imvoucd. But where there wat no evidence cencered of relevant nalive Jaw oer eustom, Lhe pover to imooue a sontence which ir all the cireunetanees 38 juol and proper remaricd. Likewise, the mower vested in the court fo receive ~ "any evidence which may be lengercd in mitigation oF penali apt we ainteiicd, we think, Eo ensure ihar the opening werds of "«.GA vero nol baie a bo fim2i the evedinee which might have been »leced befors the court. Ue loubl, any such evidence ha. li be ~olevanl to the tasl of the juree lo immoese a just and syoper senlence in *he cireunsrances. hr was a tuplher ground oF appeal that the Learned? triad judee erred a1 Jaw in holeing that it was Lhe antention of "he lecisiatuve (hal, in the cease of Fr Aboriginal convictie of muvder, Ihe penalty of life amperisonmen! Cid net apply. > | Dp 3 in ouv vic his Honour gid not sa hold, When his reasons fur sentences are vead in their cntivety *t 19, we lhink, clear thal ne eid not take "he view atrribuied to him. It is true chat he 72d wave "On Lhe coutrary, il seems to ne tkel the clear Cnientoon of Fhe tegistature 1s thal whilst, in the case or nor-aborigina's, Qo eenally for murder, of whalever gree, as man alory life imopisenment , Phar penalhy 1 voc at all avsvoprlate in "hoontsga of an aboriginat aorvitced of Mindset, 7. Tic Honaur laa not iikend Fo imply bnat the penaliy of Tife rrorisemmeat did not omsly in the eae of an Aboriginal couvicted af murder. Tle shoul? be teken fo have meant po more thnaa that, im conlrast witr s.6 of Fhe Criminal Law Conselidatiai Aet, a jedte senleneing at Aboriginal vor nideroclid) not start wilh any pyeconsentison thar lule ampyeroonment was appropriale in Lhe case 3f an Abcrigiaal convicted of murder. LF wes Sor the Judge ta consider what was juctoand proper in Fhe eiveumstaneess, not cone bratteed te Cte fate conlemes which was mandators, where a ven-Aberrits edi wile gaivulved Wis Honey had been aonvited by the Crovr te adyroaich the matler of seilenees on Ene besis that, evel 1f sub-s.6(1C) ves nal controlled hy s.6A, the starlLing soint was a sentenec of late iumprisonmeit, as fixed by ob, and that that chould we the senlence in rhe case of an Aboriginal unless, reloveanliv, bhenre vere cireumsturces in miFigat ton His Nonoar Geedbined to adovtr that oappycach and, in ouv view, Cermeariy + wi. tl nay well heave been that in a pavticular case, vhere an Aboriginal sa senteneed far murder, Fifc impr sonnmner wa aret ane Ta . os Jie ta hat St ans pen ey hie care laneer. bat that vec b cagae 4 epowumelaneds divlaled sich 4 cen we, nor Fecause wife impr-son- MENT VAG lab Ales A CIg= FA Pe wer pear kh SOMO TTY gee Che Movin. Another un yniesior wan mage on behalf oF the Crown which we have datficul'yv tn understanding. Yeferenc2: was rade Lo che Racial Jisgevimination Act 1975 anc 1l was submicted that, alvhcash it did rer overrule any of The relevant seoyvr cede of the Crautnal Gew Coneelidet oom Aceh, "Le should be borne in mind ta |The interpm<lariron to be place upun " here pravicteue™ aol ar qleppreatataed ohoauld be avotded which had "the e fect of breaching the svirit of the |» Racial Daseriminaiion Aci", especially "Section 10... and artiele 3Cer) of rhe Schedule - the right to ecual lrealment Lofarne Fac Tribunat® and all other orcans administering tubliee™. JL ts unnecessary to conuider whether, because of sa. 6C1C) anil G4, there wos conflict between 3.39 Of the Ceiminal Law Consetidatier Act ana Eau racial Diserimaneation Ack. hak 25sue docs ael Jall for devernina'ion. hems 18 no attach unen the validity of 33.601C) and GAL There je no Juwbl that, on any view, Che are by Chee two s ovions made speeral oroeviccton sith resvect to the wntencing of Aboriginals convicted uF rurder. The oaly questior is as to the nature and extent of Th sper qal wrevyision whieh Flew midge. The Racial Diseraminavion Ack oroviges no useful guicance whatever as Lo that cuestion apon which we have alrcadv expressed our Oo Tron, What then were the eczreumstanees thav srompted ais Wore? Peo cone bide Thal sondemers of Lb? years imepisouneat were Just aid prover yn the cipeumstances? Soma cf these ee anelences velar to the commission of che of fence 1:.selF Ieeluding the eeteal of Gabor? ation; some relatcd to lle impact «© F the inumler gvnon ihe respondents, snd sore velate2 ta their background ar' upkeinging. The Crown coallenged & aumver of fanaings made by his Ilonour in Lhese respects y. and further contended Phat undue weight was piven to ther lo the oe vtent Chat the centonee: wera miuriPest ly miviequate, fabled to give propor connideralion Lo the retributive > aspeals OF sentencing enc Falted (oO give Dropcer considaeratior. lo the deberpent avpeer of sentatme ine. s to the circumstances of Ine offence itself, his Honour concluded? chat the offence was committea "in a state of advanced inloxteation" for cach of |he responuents. He "hough? too thar there wan "a strong clement of impulse" aboul the ol tence ys "prmociprbebed, To thank, by Ube resulblary vords spoven by the dteeacsed lo Phoda, at a lime wher |heir nass7 ons wore inflamed by alaeholt. The Crown contendid that each of Pheoe Findings wat apaspst tin weight of the evide ice. We discern no ervrer in cthe approach aucented by the -t14]1 judges. Te Lroatecd the prisoners as ceually culn«ble rao ble Crowne dil wot tusyesge tia ve Should have aoene ao ohowwice, a4 His comprnksa in pelalion to the issues oF roodery ani ihe "nsulting vord. were cyificised and woe were taken to the evidence in sonsiderab'e dceta1rl. There were conflicling vepolons. To li wet approoriaty for us te arrive at our own Gone busty on the evs lice we vousd nel oo pepouaded of any eenelucion nore unfavourable ta Lhe priseners than that shorlly letore the oftence thev decided in their intox-catec = ad Sake bo lemand moo. from the doeea1sed and if rnecensiyry to rob Tim wir withont rhoughe of k21jing him, that in the uF brecess of executing that olecision, wnile all the particioant inetuding the deceased verre in a haghty ritavicated state, the +E 4 4 1n, ecaued insulted one of Line prisuners who became annoyed, and thet events then esealared into the tragie violenee which Jed bo the deerbl of Che decoded. We hope inal w: do not unlderestinate the ser1ousness of The tragedy whocn caused three uthappyv human beings enmeshed in a Jafe of Aiseomforr and derradation to tale the biFe of anelher spevhape egually unhanpy but miliely innocent human bere. 'turther, we are eonse1our that if as lAapprouriate lo consider whet sentenees the prizoerc should have received movely by pueference Lo Lheir interests. A oivere penalty wis ecsential bola by way of nunishment ia Lhe oe 1soners ard by wav of a teterrenl Lor rhe pro.ection OF Ihe public. lt is apparer! char ots Menour kepe in mind the ceoproutnes.e of Lhe offence of which each respondent vas eonvicted. He ratiel "ll. the ex ine committed by the prelbouyerL Vas a very grave one. [loyary comarhte. wiih grea! ealloansness and brutality. Tr was a epime thal Warrants che sey tor bopuni eden ot. eu! T thinl that vunishment should be vaonperad by reason or a number or roaches addused 1m miltgatiron a venalty". That approach was entirely carrech and was in aoeordane owen Phe eemarts of Street C.d. an the Now South 'alee Count ef Criminal Appeal in R. v. Mus Cunveportes judomenz delivered 7 July 1983). In the course of evolapitrg the cTow Pourh wales law with presprel To sentencing for oe mie tele ath lor he ptbreedte bh ren of the Ceoiaes Clomreade ) st Ack of 198°?) nis Tarsus gard 2b 7.3 Lt. "ALL who are conversart wiln the admbrrclratian of the criminal Taw aware of the wide ranging bumean siluatrons that car under- dic ct murder, Wa say theb, 2n practical and human terms, there ar pradactions of eriminalicy in murder is no wesaggeralLon. Tu pase the sane Dracoiian puntence ef tile for all murders Bbeeame recooniszed as esaually aneensttive as [ne old ecntenes of deatn far all murders". some preference muot be made lo the history and lite style of cach respondent. we shall deal with them in che arden Mowieh they appear as respontents. Pum¢ la Samposn io ppubably in her mid-twenlies. he Wao born al Ywenduma aml ww a Walpirt. She had a tradilioni tribe] uobringing, perricinating in treditioral women's core monies and trevelliay imo the cousalpy !'o colleel bush cacher. in aevcoerdances with Aboriginal cunlemary law she ves Promised an marriage and, at aboul the age of 17, she went to her bucband as arrange ?. She found however that he already had anethern wire who wae a Pintubi aud whom she J2d aot know. This mit hay in a eco-wi-e otluarion with a woman "ho was neither e Sistcr nor a classificatury sister. Tn his Gonour's words, "the pesult was thet there were disputalions, there ware jealous furhrs, and aio war un wrihippy, dhichresoing gsvluation for her™, Al the same time the marpiege of her methes and father was alsa unnad dy ang? vidleul After about ? ycirps of marriage, she left Yuendumu an* Leave lle d clrouwshoul tbe Territory, tfaleing up with a number of wni'te ac. She moved to Darwin te 1980 end toale ur yegi.Jence with a whites man. 'This pelatlonsnip continued until the time OF Phe offenee. Ter Lifvestvle an Darwin was described by his Horour as lo. oone of drimting at viarsous fringe camps, cueh as Low Dewn near lire Telford Hotel and Mindil Beweh, as well as ak hotels such as the Koala ant the Parap. Her companions, im general, were orher Aboriginal and Turopean 1lineranlea™. Ihe. respondent Sampson has a lorg hislorv of prior convictions song Lack to 197L. They are clechol re_.ated offences - drunkenness, Lighting in a public place, larceny, disorderly Lehaviour, objeclronable words and malicious damape. Rhela Waeraviaiva was, at the time of her conviction, 7 years of age. Shs vas born at Angurugu on Groote Lylondt. She vas educalecd lo aboul the age of 15. After she left school che began te learn tu leach pre-school childrei but soor abandoned this work. Arool. Ryland), nes Wonaur was told, hes been preaily alleel) d by mining whieh hag led lo a brealing down of [ne _raditional lifestyle and sevial relarionchips of the Aboriginal neople There. The iplroduetien oF alcohol has accelerated thr proeess. The marriage csvslem ha. al® but oroken down. As 4 4. vesult il was difficull to get a clear picture of the responuent's background and upbringing. She 1s not married but ste 1 Phe mether of * Jaughteres who, at the time of her corviction, were are. J3 and 6. The elder girl was born in Darwin and her fath-p 16 a ehite man. The Father o1 tne you iger piv! 16 an Aboriginal a! Gove. Sinee shorlly after their bigths, Vath yids fave been cared Car by the respondent's cldest sisler. Rhoda Wurpravilya began drsnking at about the age of 16 and from £8 anwards was a regular drinker, obtaining her money end drink Crom male companions. Tt seems thai ~J she ame too live aa Darwin nok lone afler January 197 La a =. toal, up ween a while man but, as a result of repeated besaiays, che JTeft him and went te live at Bagot Reserve ard the Arafura Hoete lL. Later whe returned to Live with this Man and continued lo do so until the tame ef the offence. Her existence was deseribed Loa the courl in the pre-sertence peport of a fiacldad of freer an: Woo ene topeledy pevedved areund obtetiming and drinvaing alveohol. Yer re atsonships apoear lo have been founded upon the aeeessibilicy of aleohol and the tikelihood of oLlaining maney Por the purpose ef purehasing aleohol". This rer omlent too hac oe history of offences, gona Maes to 1971. Some pelite lo of fenecs against! property such as Jarceny and beine unlavefully on peemises, many relate to aleohal related of new 5 such es drunkenesa, in rds ecent jJangvece and diseroerty Lethiy pour. The roisvondent Ugarre Uerbert was born al Lajamanu anc was, ar the Time of Fow conviekioi, ?1 years of age. Like Pome ta Samoesen, she i ov val prrei. She lives at haqamenn unkt! Jie owas abeur lf. Ter ubbringing was on traditional Jines. She lived tn a family camp with her brothers and sisters and women of the Ualamerra aibewection who elood ta the relationsh_v of mevrep Fo hor. They laughh her io haat and about her country. 1's. She cook parl in women's eeremonses and was present at inqirialion eacrononies ar which women have certain roles to Se ee ———— When ubout LO or J] the respondent wenl to ai old bP] maa ay iis scoond wife pursuant bo sume arrangement. This See teee nore wee did not necessarily involve any sexual] relationship at thai age. The arrangement wis nok a happy ane and the resnondent 8 2 a eo raooeaweay Crom her husband (rom time to Lime. 'Tunis in turu Jed to tension in her own family. Uer mother insisted she return to ber husband. [ler unele told her she dic not have ro Lecause hem husband had already conlractec unm unproner marriage and she did not have to stay with such a man. While al Lajamanu she attended school until she "1 mas about 15, oblaiiming an elucation equrvalent to year ¢ poet upimairy devel. he wag dese wibed as Inviting a mea' ol Capacily well above average, ays haviny a "very high inlbelliccnee™. hake ain 1978, when she vas about 16, "Isaire Hersorl run away Lrom Lajyan int dau came fo Papwin. 3ne hed 3 hal*- See in eaten ed a CE SNS eS NR LE sisters living them. She soon vecame a peguiar drinier, eventually irioikins every day ard geting "Cull drurlk" every night. Cho began a lang List of seal eolavionsh'ps whieh conmbiauea uw o the time of the offenee. She has tates prior conviclions (ottectionable words, larceny and drinking 17 8 cublic plaee) but |hev were considered by his Horour to be "ofl vo sagniricanee Lor present purposes". lf Io wan tne Crown's submission that the res»yandents had Celiberaitely chosen rhein lifesrvles and, by imp'tivatien, Ihat & eons ideralton at -hese lifestyles should play ne nort du Lhe senlencing vroeees. We reyeet this anproach ag an oversimplification. Tach of the respondents had, when quite yourg, left Mie Aborigine) communtiy ai whieh one lawl been raised. "he eeasequcnen Of thio wae teserpaibed by hes floneuy an tre followans words: "No Tanger do they have tae cuppert of their famities and tne eclose- vViit, complex network of relation- shing that characterise sboriginal fsociely - polationships that not anly protec. them from urecdue vhysical vioLence but also that consor their moral cotecuct. Trom Tocappertive Femily envirenmer' Chey nowe inlo an environment of eereulrably tintivicddel redlatton. has In which they are Fheown on their Wl recuvrees which are quite Theb quabe Lo eap. wetbh such relatlotsuninos. Furthermore, the relulionoships thet they do form dre offen ta bh alher aboriginal opie in a similar situation to (hie msclvces, and with the derelicts Of while foun fy who were described to me os 'deros! and while tra thet lLowas 'Qe poaptreular ¢tlyualion of the vresponcents Thal, 1172 many other Aboriginals, they had left the suppor! ey ther cen sagiety hul olloanecd none of 'he positive supner: end guidance white sottely hos to offer. As his Honour no1ited oul, cheis eondiriean was Il Ther oly ad! Ol an ferlanate , derroevweel members of "he community el ody wea elton see im Lhese rouere, Tor, in Their vac 5, there dnt Feanseau meal dimeracian of Ui ie eum die pen. 3c one on the cullure y the reaulitions., tha bobo bey bam reeste gun tow bP btes ee re Coo re | Bosal) 2 DeOnLe That ety Ure chute 1s | my ine, IN eorpen. The teoesu. fo a6 Lhew som) Fie tas fo othoew Pimbo. bey / J Lelong nowhere, nce before the Tcarnes trial Judge. teat) Him tor wh Phese eaatluciens me the ratbers ls wabaehoe beve jack pefergped vere molevent eons tucralions io determining what sentenees rcre ust aud proper. The Tearned trial judge pointed oul tait "drankerar]e ss as nel normally repcrded as a mitigctine faelor". Rut this WAL NOC A cage Moapely Of persons committing offences iollowir Jo an Gplecde Got heave: grinsing. There was cvidence thay Pam-ta Sar son aml Rhoda Wurrewilya wore alcoholics to tne degree tra" they hie e per eased epreedes of delavium tremens. An bhough Weraie Herbert had nec poached 'hal stage, she was nrecubtealy = heavy driaker. It was ir thay context that his Honour cate he didi net om gerd the offence as "coldly preeomeditabed". Agais, that was oe conelusio1 his Honour wis onmbartal go peach and, hawing reasiea! rf, lo give 1t seme wejyoht in the sentenees he Lhought qust and praccr. hese tia aloe matetial before his Monour estitline bin © cone@lude Fheak Loe eipcunsceness of the respondents had spo2uced "severe emabional cis ress". This vas a nal*er he tas entill)d te Fare into account. Neal vo F. (1987) 42 ALP i7. Bis Honour rejected a submission made on bchaif of one of the vrespondenls that there was native law or custom tnat might be scald to have Justified o> in some way cortributed to the offences. As the respondents were not called upon in this appeal, this 's e matter on vhaion vo need express no view. There is nothing in what his Honour said which persuades us that he did not do as he was commanded by sub-s.6(1C) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and have regard to "all the circumstances of the case". Nor do we think that he took into account extraneous circumstances or gave undue weight to some matters or insufficient weight to others. His basic task was to balance the gravity of the crime and the need for punishment of the prisoners and the protection of the public with the spec:tal considerations applicable to the prisoners both as Aboriginals end as andividuals. That task was faithful.y undertaken ané uxsecuted. The result was a sentence for eacn ~pisoner woich exsused her ce a maximum of something ir. excess or 14 vedys imprisonpent trom the timc when che was farsi placea up cuscody with a seriod of nearly 8 vears impr2zsonment before she becomes ¢liigibl<e for parole. In our opinion, although the offence was a bvutel mirder, those sentences were not "in all the circurstarees" inadequate. Accordinglv, we were of opinion that the appeals should be dicmiesca yagoc ape a true conz of the Reasons fon Judgment herein of Tre Couet. Avscciate Miles 11 April 198