Police v Bond

[2014] QMC 29

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Bond [2014] QMC 29

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

FRANK HERBERT BOND

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG184454/14(9), MAG185067/14(9)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Charge

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Kingaroy

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Kingaroy

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2014

MAGISTRATE:

Young SM

ORDER:

Defendant is committed to sentence in the District Court.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the defendant may be adequately punished on summary conviction

Criminal Code, s 552D

COUNSEL:

Gangemi (sergeant) appeared for prosecution

P Campion appeared for defendant

SOLICITORS:

ATSILS for defendant

Prosecution on own behalf

1. The Defendant, Mr Frank Herbert Bond has entered a plea of guilty to a total of 11 offences, primarily arising from an extended incident that occurred during the night of 13 September 2014 in what I have previously described as a “methamphetamine fuelled rampage”.

1. The charges in short compass are:

AOBH whilst armed x 3

AOBH x 2

Common Assault x 4

Possess dangerous drug (methyl methamphetamine); and

Fail to dispose needle and syringe.

1. All charges carry the potential for significant periods of gaol time however the most serious charges are the assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed which each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

1. I do not propose to set out in any detail the facts and circumstances of the charges however actual violence (punching and kicking) and threats of violence (involving a knife and a hammer) were perpetrated against his de-facto partner, who had recently given birth, as well as to his long time female friend together with assaults upon two of his young teenage children (involving pinning them helpless and holding a knife to their throats with threats to cut).

1. That these offences were committed against his family only serves to highlight the severity of his offending and the tragic consequences of his drug use. He is 32 years of age and, I am told, remorseful for his actions. He has entered pleas of guilty at a very early stage however has limited recollection of what he did on that night.

1. Despite a handwritten note from one of the victims indicating support for Mr Bond I am not inclined to fully accept his indication of remorse as by injecting the drug he made a deliberate choice that put lives of several family members in jeopardy and as it is a matter for which he has previously served time in gaol his continued use of illicit drugs tempers the weight to be attached to his expression of remorse.

1. His criminal history is poor and although his history does not disclose any similar incident he has been imprisoned for, among other things, supplying dangerous drugs in 2009. Mr Bond has been the subject of various community based orders (some of which he has breached) however the previous orders and penalties have not had the desired deterrent effect, ultimately resulting in the charges presently before the Court.

1. These charges might be matters for which a Magistrates Court would exercise jurisdiction however there are several aggravating factors that suggest that Mr Bond’s matters should be considered by a higher Court with the ability to more appropriately address the sentencing outcomes as set out in s 9(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

1. A Magistrates Court is not a Court that breaks new ground in law or sets precedent; this is reserved for higher Courts and ultimately in Queensland the Court of Appeal or else the High Court. A Magistrate is to follow the decisions of the higher Courts in its hierarchy and to apply the law as set out in legislation.

1. In this instance I have received the benefit of a number of authorities being:

R v Ottaviano [1997] QCA 338 – aobh against 11 year old daughter (2 ½ years);

R v Bell [2000] QCA 485 – aobh involving a hammer used on de-facto (3 ½ years);

R v Hearn [2001] QCA 143 – punch and stomping to the head (2 ½ years);

R v Summers [2004] QCA 275 – aobh involving tyre lever and hammer (3 years).

1. The difficulties I have with proceeding to sentence Mr Bond involve not only the application of these authorities but also two further considerations:

1.          The most recent of these authorities is now some 10 years old; and (more relevantly in my view)

2.          None of these cases involved the use of methamphetamine.

1. The prevalence of methamphetamines (including methyl methamphetamine) is a scourge upon our communities and is a relevant aggravating factor in a significant minority of offending.

1. In my short time in this jurisdiction I have faced on a weekly, if not daily, basis the human carnage that results from the use of this particular group of drugs. Court appearances ranging from simple offences (shoplifting and stealing to support a habit, drug driving) through more serious assaults, breaches of domestic violence protection orders and burglary and up to and including a number of offences of violence approaching the seriousness of Mr Bond’s actions – and not forgetting charges for the possession of dangerous drugs.

1. I have formed the view that Mr Bond’s offences, possibly unfortunately for Mr Bond, will allow a higher Court the opportunity to consider making a guideline judgment regarding how strongly this type of offending is to be condemned. It may be however that such higher Court does not consider the facts and circumstances of his actions as requiring any restatement or refinement of the law and, if so, even this will be of guidance to magistrates in dealing with offenders such as Mr Bond, who are appearing with increasing frequency in this jurisdiction.

1. My opinion (which will have no bearing upon the consideration of sentence by the District Court) when I consider the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the current authorities - and given Mr Bond’s particularly heinous acts of violence against vulnerable women to whom he owed a duty of support, involving and committed against infants and children whilst under the influence of a self injected dangerous drug – is that Mr Bond’s head sentence should be of no less than 4 years imprisonment, notwithstanding the various mitigating factors that must be given due weight by the Court.

1. I am therefore satisfied that pursuant to s 552D(1) of the Criminal Code Mr Bond would not be adequately punished by me upon a summary conviction and I commit him to sentence in the District Court.