R v Brown

[1992] QCA 189

COURT OF APPEAL	[1992] QCA 189
FITZGERALD P McPHERSON JA DEMACK J
CA NO 125 OF 1992
THE QUEEN
v.
BRADLEY LAURENCE BROWN	Applicant
BRISBANE ... DATE 3/6/92

JUDGMENT
McPHERSON JA; The applicant was convicted of one charge of
attempted murder committed on 19 October 1991. He was sentenced
on 20 March 1992 to a term of six years' imprisonment.

The circumstances are that the police were called to the residence at which he lived. They were met by the applicant's mother who escorted the officers to the kitchen.

The applicant was seated at a kitchen table. When spoken to by the male police officer who had arrived, he picked up a long-handled kitchen knife and said, "I'm going to kill you, you bastards". With that, he rushed toward the police. He lunged with the knife in a downwards stabbing motion toward the neck or shoulder region of the male police officer, whose name is Zammit.

The force used was said to be "enough to dig the whole blade of the knife in my neck". It missed its target by only an inch to an inch and a half, according to one estimate that has been made of it. There was evidence that the applicant continued to pursue the officers and made another attempt at stabbing before he could be restrained.

The learned sentencing Judge, in imposing a sentence of six years' imprisonment in respect of the offence, took into account the fact that the applicant was on probation at the time of the commission of the offence; also that there were unfavourable maters in a report from his community corrections officer, together with circumstances that for this offence it was necessary to find, and the jury had found, a specific intent on the part of the applicant to kill.

He was only nineteen years of age. He had a disturbed family life and a history of abusing various substances. Those maters were also taken into account by His Honour, along with a demonstrated lack of remorse on the part of the applicant, which was manifested by the fact that he made some other threats or statements after he had been sentenced to the effect that he would kill the police officer Zammit.

The case is in some respects a sad one when one looks at the report of Dr Peros, forensic psychologist, who examined the applicant. It appears that the applicant had a very unhappy and disturbed childhood. His father was given to drink and it was his practice to flog the applicant when he was a boy with the electric cord from a jug. There were some other unpleasant incidents in his early life, too, such as that his father, on one

occasion, started up a chainsaw and appears to have been

intending to threaten the applicant with that weapon.

The problem with all this is that, for reasons associated with his background, or it may be some other reason, the applicant has turned out to be a person of violent tendencies. He has a not insubstantial criminal history, even allowing for the fact that he was only nineteen at the time of commission of this offence. The record before us shows convictions beginning in November 1988 for unlawful assault, robbery, and again in 1990, assault. These three offences were interspersed among a considerably larger number of offences for using obscene language, resisting police and wilful damage to property. It may perhaps be inferred from the nature of the offences and their repetition on a series of occasions that from time to time the police have attempted to remove him from places, or subdue him in some fashion, because of his behaviour, and that he has reacted by using obscene language, resisting them, and causing damage to property.

The upshot of it all is that he does not really present an attractive prospect from the point of view of probation or parole. The recommendation that is sought on this appeal is that there be a lower benchmark than the three years at which the applicant would ordinarily be considered for parole. No direct attack is made on the duration of the head sentence, which, it is accepted, is within the range of sentences appropriate for an offence of this kind. When all these matters are considered, and it is appreciated that there is no obviously useful purpose to be served in recommending that this young man be released earlier than he would otherwise be, I can see no reason why we should vary the sentence by adding the recommendation that is sought here. I must say it is a matter for regret, and I am sure that all of us feel it, that a person should have been brought to this state by his unfortunate home life, if that is what has happened; but I do not think that it is a consideration which ought to lead to the making of a recommendation that he be considered for early parole.

In all these circumstances, I can see no basis on which the sentence could be varied, and I would accordingly refuse the application for leave to appeal.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree that the applicant's personal circumstances do not provide a sufficient reason for recommendation for early parole in this case and with the other remarks of McPherson JA and I would refuse the application.

DEMACK J. I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Court is application is refused.

------