R v Powell - [2000] NSWCCA 108

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R. v. POWELL [2000] NSWCCA 108

FILE NUMBER(S):
060210/99

HEARING DATE(S): 13 March, 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/03/2000

PARTIES:
REGINA
CHRISTOPHER JOHN POWELL

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/31/0502

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: ENGLISH DCJ

COUNSEL:
T.J. GOLDING (Applicant)
C.K. MAXWELL (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
T.A. MURPHY (Applicant)
S.E. O'CONNOR (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
Crimnal Law - Sentence - Malicious Wounding Pattern of Entrenched Disadvantage

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
SENTENCE REDUCED. SEE PARA. 22.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

060210/99
SIMPSON J
SMART AJ
Monday 13 March 2000
REGINA v CHRISTOPHER JOHN POWELL

JUDGMENT

SMART AJ: Christopher John Powell seeks an extension of time and leave to appeal against the severity of sentences of 4 years 6 months with a minimum term of 3 years, special circumstances being found, and concurrent fixed terms of 6 months on each of the two counts of common assault being also concurrent with the sentence for malicious wounding. The Judge took into account the further offence of breach of apprehended violence order on 13 October 1998 when the applicant assaulted the victim of the malicious wounding. The Judge took no action in respect of breach of recognizance on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. An extension of time should be granted as the application was only a few days late and a satisfactory explanation has been given.
The applicant and the victim, Kelly, had been in a relationship for about two years. At times it had been characterised by violence. During the afternoon of 13 October 1998 they and two friends, Lucella and Jim, were at 3 Glen Street Tamworth. They had been and were drinking alcohol. By about 9 pm the applicant had become jealous of Jim whom he believed was making advances to Kelly. By that time the applicant had had quite an amount to drink. The applicant and Jim went outside the house. Jim tried to calm the applicant.
A short time after returning to the house the applicant blamed Lucella for putting things in Kelly's head, walked to the kitchen and obtained two large kitchen knives, one in each hand. He approached Lucella and Jim and swung the knives at each of them. They ran from the premises.
Kelly ran to her bedroom, closed the door and lent against the door. The applicant kicked the door open and swung the knives at the face of Kelly. He stabbed her in the lower part of the back twice saying, "I am going to kill you". In an attempt to calm him down she told him that she loved him and wished to marry him. He told her to tell the police that she had fallen on the knives. The male friend returned to the premises and the applicant again threatened him and chased him with the knives. Kelly was admitted to Tamworth Base Hospital for treatment of the stab wounds.
During his recorded interview the applicant stated that during an argument he went to the kitchen area and obtained two knives. He further stated that he threatened the two friends to scare them. He went to the bedroom where Kelly was. She fell onto the knife on two occasions. That version was incorrect.
The applicant's record stretches back to 1981. He has prior convictions for dishonesty offences, traffic offences, assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He has been fined and placed on recognizance. He has spent some short periods in gaol. He was fined for assault in May 1997. On 12 June 1998 he was sentenced to 6 months periodic detention for contravening an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order and placed on 3 years' recognizance for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with conditions designed to address his alcohol problem.
The sentencing judge approached the applicant's record as disclosing minor offences until 1997, but held that there was a deterioration in his behaviour from April 1998 onwards. The materials justified such an approach. The judge stated the applicant would receive consideration for his plea of guilty, albeit that his conviction was highly likely. The judge had heard the applicant express his remorse but said that she was not confident that he had a real understanding of the terror and hurt he caused to the victims.
The applicant, who was born on 8 June 1966, comes from a large family, being the sixth of eleven children. He had a disadvantaged and unsettled upbringing and there have been tragic deaths in the family. Wherever possible he engaged in heavy outdoor work, including fencing, bush work and some mining. His entrenched alcohol problem has also given rise to health problems and led to him being given a disability pension.
In July 1998 the applicant attempted suicide and spent some days in a mental health hospital unit. He was depressed and, indeed, seems to have had a history of depression. The district manager of the Probation and Parole Service has written:
"In the past he has not managed to address the alcohol situation adequately and never managed to complete any rehabilitation course/program although always attending with the right intention".
The drink problem started when the applicant, like so many other young aborigines living on the aboriginal reserve at Goodooga, began drinking while still in his early teens. He lived in Goodooga and Lightning Ridge until he was in his late 20s. This appears to be a case where the applicant's alcoholism is very much a product of his lifestyle on the aboriginal reserve and the unsatisfactory family background.
The Judge expressed these views:
"He has had a gross disregard for his obligations and undertakings to abide by apprehended violence orders and has shown an inability to attend and comply with alcohol rehabilitation. He has failed to comply with periodic detention. I have no doubt that future breaches are likely with respect to alcohol unless and until he fully complies with attendance and supervision at an appropriate institution.
His crimes are separate and distinct and deserving of individual penalties, indeed cumulative penalties. I will not however enter into an exercise of accumulation and I will fix an overall head sentence reflecting the total criminality together with concurrent fixed terms. I have taken into account the breach of recognizance and the matter contained in the Form 1.
I have been urged to find special circumstances and I will do so as it is in the interests of the prisoner and the community that he be given every opportunity to rehabilitate himself. If he is genuine in this regard eighteen months is adequate."
The materials have left me with the strong opinion that the applicant's problems are more deep seated than the judge's remarks indicate and that it will take much time and effort if even a moderately satisfactory result is ultimately to be achieved. It is most unlikely to be achieved in 18 months, given the entrenched nature and long-standing of the alcohol problem and the applicant's health.
Counsel for the applicant relied on some statistics produced from the Judicial Commission and pointed out that the head sentence of four and a half years tended to be towards the top of the range. There was only a relatively small number of matters in which greater sentences were passed. However, the applicant can take no comfort from this because on any view this was a case which attracted a head sentence of four and a half years.
The Crown has rightly stressed that the offences were very serious and that the main factor is the objective gravity of the offences. They were unprovoked, they involved a serious breach of the peace, with the use of two large kitchen knives. They caused much alarm and distress to three separate victims as well as physical harm.
Violent acts in domestic situations must be treated with real seriousness. The principal attack of counsel for the applicant was that the judge had failed to consider the principles referred to in Fernando, 76 A Crim R 58. It was the applicant's case that Fernando recognised that there could be cases where the background of an accused was of such a nature that the offences themselves should be seen in that context. Of particular importance in this case is the applicant growing up in an area where alcoholic consumption from an early age was the norm. The family background of the applicant was distressing and disadvantaged.
The Crown submitted that even though the judge did not refer to Fernando and the principles which it states, she nevertheless had regard to some or most of the matters to which Fernando required attention to be paid. She made a reference to the submissions of the applicant’s counsel regarding his troubled upbringing and alcoholism and that alcoholism has plagued his life. She added that she was asked to take into consideration the fact that the prisoner formed a relationship late in life but due to his turbulent upbringing the relationship was not stable and resulted in an increase in his long-standing drinking problem and escalation of his depressive illness.
The judge, while noting these submissions on behalf of counsel, did not herself embark upon any of the considerations referred to in Fernando. At no stage in her remarks does the judge mention or deal with the applicant's entrenched pattern of disadvantage and the effects of his unsatisfactory upbringing. No reference is made to Fernando or the later cases which followed it, nor does the judge purport to apply those principles. This was a case where those principles should have been applied. The valiant effort made by the Crown to suggest, in effect, that the judge applied the Fernando principles and, alternatively, that they had no weight in this case, cannot succeed. The applicant has established error and this Court must re sentence.
The Crown's position upon re-sentencing was that the actual sentence was correct and anything less was not sufficient to reflect the objective gravity of the offences. There is further material to be taken into account on re-sentencing. The work report of Glen Innes Gaol states,
"The applicant's work and conduct have been well above average. Since being in prison he has undertaken courses to improve his literacy and numeracy. He has also done word processing courses and studied art. He has developed his artistic skill as a painter to the stage where he is able to sell some of his paintings. He is keen to continue the course dealing with anger management and the work to control his alcohol dependancy".
He had previously been at Bathurst Gaol where he was regarded as a very good student who attended many courses and applied himself to them. Since being back at Glen Innes he has started attending a University of New England Tracks Programme which provides a pathway for aboriginal students to enter university. The position now differs from that before the judge. Before her the prospect of rehabilitation appeared to be relatively slight. Now there is some real prospect. One reason for the change may be that the applicant has not had access to alcohol in gaol. It will be both a difficult and testing time when he is released. Will he be able to refrain from consuming alcohol to excess?
The applicant will need much support and supervision on his release from gaol. He has a long way to go and after such an extended period on alcohol he will need extensive supervision. His parole conditions will have to deal with his alcoholic problems.
It will be apparent from what I have just said that I am of the opinion that there are compelling special circumstances. The offence of Breach of Apprehended Domestic Violence Order has been taken into account.
I propose the following orders:
(i) Extend time for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal granted.
(ii) Appeals against sentence on each of the counts of common
assaultdismissed.
(iii) Appeal against sentence on count of malicious wounding allowed.
(iv) In lieu of the sentence imposed the applicant is sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months starting on 13 October 1998 and ending on 12 April 2001 and an additional term of 2 years starting 13 April 2001.
SIMPSON J: I agree with the orders proposed and would simply add this; on behalf of the applicant in this Court considerable reliance was placed on the remarks on sentence reported in Fernando, 76 A Crim R 58. It is, in my opinion, a mistake to rely on Fernando as authority for a proposition that aboriginal heritage of itself is a mitigating circumstances. What I understood Wood J to have been saying in Fernando was that the well known social and economic problems that frequently attend aboriginal communities warrant a degree of leniency but it is the disadvantage associated too often with aboriginality that warrants that degree of leniency and not the fact of aboriginality, per se.
Care must also be taken to ensure that recognition of those problems and the principles stated in Fernando do not have the unintended consequence of apparently devaluing the effect of offences on victims, including circumstances where the victims are already themselves subject to the same pattern of disadvantage. That is the tight rope that the sentencing Judge was walking in this case. In these cases sentencing Judges have to perform an extremely difficult balancing exercise. In her remarks on sentence Judge English did not refer to the extensive and very compelling medical material, including evidence of the attempted suicide that was before her. The attention paid by her to the applicant's "troubled up bringing" suggests that insufficient appreciation was given to the extent of the disadvantage and dislocation evidenced by the whole of the material in this case.
Accordingly, I agree with the orders proposed by Smart AJ and the orders of the Court will be as proposed by him.

LAST UPDATED: 06/04/2000