R v Kazakoff

[1998] QCA 459

COURT OF APPEAL

[1998] QCA 459

McPHERSON JA
AMBROSE J

BYRNE J

CA No 236 of 1998

THE QUEEN

v.

PAUL ROBERT KAZAKOFF	Respondent
and
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND	Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 27/08/98
270898 T12/TW12 M/T COA212/98
AMBROSE J: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against the inadequacy of
the sentence imposed upon the respondent on 11 June 1998.
On that occasion, on that date he pleaded guilty on an
ex officio indictment to a charge of an assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed

and in company.

The victim of the offence was a policeman acting in the course of his duty. The
maximum penalty for this offence at the time when it was committed on 18 January
1998 was imprisonment for 10 years.

At the time of the offence the respondent had just turned 17 about a month earlier. The sentence imposed was one of two and a half years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after serving 10 months of that term. He had already been held in custody for 102 days with respect to the offence to which he had pleaded guilty and it was declared that the pre-sentence custody was to be deemed time served under the sentence imposed.

The recommendation for parole was expressly based or explained as a recognition
of the respondent's plea of guilty on the

ex officio indictment presented.

The respondent had some previous criminal history as a juvenile and the learned
sentencing Judge dealt with the effect, if any, that ought be given to that previous
criminal history. It seems to me that it would really be unhelpful at this stage to
embark upon a detailed consideration of it. The real question is whether the
270898 T12/TW12 M/T COA212/98
sentence of two and a half years imprisonment imposed for this offence was
manifestly inadequate and in my view really not helpful to look at things other than
the circumstances involved in the commission of that offence, and I will now turn to
those circumstances.

At about 12.05 a.m. on 18 January 1998 two policeman attended a disturbance outside the Manly RSL Hall. The complainant, a Constable McNamara with his partner, Constable Elley attended. When they arrived they found a large crowd outside the RSL Hall; there had obviously been a brawl; there was a lot of smashed glass on the ground and a male person was laying on the ground receiving some attention from a lady who was there. He had blood across his face and he seemed to be unresponsive.

The complainant who was ultimately assaulted and suffered significant injury tried to get assistance by radio, but was unsuccessful. Shortly after the arrival a fight broke out amongst a crowd of people; Constable Elley the complainant's partner for the evening went in an effort to stop the fight and commenced to place under arrest one of the participants. He was then surrounded by a number of male persons and at least four others ran towards him. There were at least 10 people involved in moving into attack Constable Elley.

The complainant drew his baton and went to the assistance of Constable Elley telling the group of young persons to get back away from his partner. The respondent was one of this group and as the complainant approached the respondent turned to him

and said, "You're going down." The complainant was then surrounded by a number
of young people and together they pushed him towards the wall of the RSL building.
270898 T12/TW12 M/T COA212/98
The complainant yelled out at them to get back and tried to push them away, the
respondent again said, "You're going down." Eventually the complainant was forced
against the wall of the building.

Another offender, another young man who has not been dealt with by the name of Thompson stood in front of the complainant. The respondent again said to the complainant, "You're going down" and this was repeated by Thompson. Eventually the complainant attempted to protect himself or defend himself by striking Thompson on the hip.

The complainant was then punched several times and at this stage the respondent raised a piece of timber about 1.5 metres long and about 50 millimetres square and brought it down and hit the complainant on the head. He then climbed up on a verandah of the RSL building and standing above in that position struck the complainant forcibly on the head causing him to fall on the ground. When he fell to the ground the complainant was surrounded by a number of young men who then commenced to kick him about the head an face. He was left with laceration to the top of his head, a fractured nose and severe swelling to the jaw.

At the time he committed this offence the respondent was on bail and probation for
other offences and I have indicated this material was placed in front of the
sentencing Judge.
The complainant suffered quite severe injuries and he has received medical attention
for them. The respondent was sentenced nearly six months after the commission of
the offence and during the whole of that period the complainant had been unable to
return to work. He had received operative treatment which had not been entirely
270898 T12/TW12 M/T COA212/98
successful. He had been attended by medical specialists who discovered by tests
performed upon him that he suffered some brain damage and the extent of that
damage and whether it will enter into remission seems to be uncertain. He must
have another CAT scan or similar sort of treatment and examination over the next 12
months.

His Honour the learned sentencing Judge recognised that it was a serious offence for which he was obliged to sentence the respondent. He observed that the complainant had suffered significant injuries which have caused very concerning long term affects on him. He said that it was a bad assault and it was made even worse by the fact that the respondent was armed with this piece of wood which he used to cause significant head injury to the complainant.

He observed that the respondent had taken a leading part in the injuries inflicted on the complainant and that he was the one who had wielded the stick which inflicted the most serious injuries of all on the complainant.

He said that in his view of the circumstances it was a serious assault and that
notwithstanding his youth it deserved "a fairly substantial sentence".
As I have already indicated, the maximum sentence for this offence at the material
time was a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. He said that he determined that the
assault was of such a serious nature that a substantial sentence should be imposed
and that such a sentence would be one for two and a half years for the assault. His
Honour then went on to say that because he had pleaded guilty and acknowledged
his guilt and avoided the cost of a trial he would recommend release on parole after
serving 10 months.
270898 T13/JB27 M/T COA212/98
The only conclusion that one can draw from these sentencing remarks is that His
Honour thought in the circumstances of the case the appropriate sentence was two
and a half years and would have been the appropriate sentence even if there had
not been a plea of guilty. His Honour did not appear to take into account the plea of
guilty in fixing upon the sentence of two and a half years. His Honour then ordered
that the 102 days spent in presentence custody should be deemed to have been
served as part of that sentence.

The Attorney has contended that looking at the length of the sentence imposed, having regard to the circumstances which I have outlined very briefly, the sentence is simply manifestly inadequate. Reference is made to The Queen against Howard, Telfer and Jarrett, (1968) 2 NSWR 429 where it was observed that assaults occasioning bodily harm to police officers acting in the course of their duty should attract salutary sentences. Reference was also made to observations in this Court in Williams, CA No 385 of 1997, where Mr Justice Dowsett observed, in the course of his judgment:

"The maintenance of order in our society depends upon those who are
charged with enforcing it being adequately protected to the greatest extent
possible in the performance of their duties --- if there is to be peace in the
community and that those charged with maintaining it are to go about their

duties in an acceptable way, they must be protected in so doing."

In my view, the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing Judge was, and is,
manifestly inadequate. Two police officers, unarmed, going at the request of other
members of society, disturbed the brawl that was going on, attempting to break it up,
were obviously set upon by this group and it seems, on the material, and accepted
by the learned sentencing Judge, that the respondent was very much a leader of this
whole exercise. It was he who made the threats to the complainant on the ground.
270898 T13/JB27 M/T COA212/98
It was he who struck him on the head with a heavy piece of wood and put him on the
ground and then his associates commenced to kick him about the head causing him
significant injury.

In my view this is a case in which the Crown's contention that the penalty to be imposed ought be fixed at four years can be supported only on the basis that a penalty of four years' imprisonment is assessed taking into account the plea of guilty on the ex officio indictment. Had the matter been determined upon trial, in my view the serious nature of the assault upon these policemen, and upon the complainant in particular, would have justified a significantly more heavy sentence than one of four years but the Crown does not argue for a greater sentence and, in my view, a sentence of four years ought not be regarded as a comparable sentence for future offences of this sort proved against people who do contest them. The four year sentence, in my view, four year imprisonment sentence can be supported really only on the basis of the plea of the respondent on the ex officio indictment presented.

With respect to an early recommendation for parole, it seems to me that it is having regard to the age of the respondent and the hope that one would have that he will receive some counselling and guidance while in custody that may make him an acceptable candidate for release, but principally having regard to his age, I would make a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after serving 18 months of the four year sentence.

I would therefore allow the Attorney's appeal. I would set aside the sentence
imposed below and I would order that the respondent be imprisoned for a period of
four years. I would order that the period of 102 days served in presentence custody
270898 T13/JB27 M/T COA212/98
be treated as service of part of that sentence and I would recommend that he be
eligible for parole after serving 18 months of the sentence imposed today.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

BYRNE J: The protection of police officers acting in the execution of their duty must
surely be a matter of considerable concern to the Courts and the community. Those
who like this respondent, acting in company, mete out violence with a weapon to a
police officer must expect condign punishment.
Notwithstanding the applicant's youth and the consequential need to give due
recognition to his age and, one would hope, prospects of rehabilitation, for the
reasons given by
Mr Justice Ambrose I find myself in substantial disagreement with the sentence

appealed from and also agree in the orders proposed.

McPHERSON JA: The order will be as Mr Justice Ambrose has stated it.

-----