R v Price - [1992] QCA 229

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 229

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA
DEMACK J

CA NO 117 of 1992

THE QUEEN

MICHAEL BRIAN PRICE

Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 2/6/92

JUDGMENT

020692

JUDGMENT

DEMACK J: On 20 March 1992 Michael Brian Price pleaded guilty to one charge of assault occasioning bodily harm; one charge of dangerous driving; and two charges of wilful and unlawful damage to property. The four offences arose out of one incident. Briefly this can be described as follows.

At about 9.10 p.m. on 28 November 1990 Price entered the Hyperdome Medical Centre. He appeared to be intoxicated. He became abusive towards the doctor on duty, at one stage threatening to fix him with a shotgun. A part‑time contract cleaner, Mr Symon, came to the doctor's side, and was told by Price that, "A shotgun blast to the head will fix you."

Price was told to leave the premises and went through glass doors into the carpark, threatening to damage the cars of the victims of his abuse. The doctor and Mr Symon watched Price get into his car, which he then drove up to the glass doors at the medical centre. He offered abuse, smiled, reversed his car, and then drove it forward at speed through the closed doors. It was said that Mr Symon estimated the speed of the vehicle, as it went through the glass doors, at 40 km/h.

One of the doors struck Mr Symon. He suffered some concussion, blurred vision, painful right knee and ankle, injury to right arm and shoulder, and back pain. He seems to have recovered without any disability from these injuries. Price then reversed the vehicle out of the centre, and drove it into a car that was owned by Mr Symon's wife.

These facts gave rise to the four charges and the plea to them. Price tendered a report from a Doctor Walsh, psychiatrist. That report included the opinion of the doctor that Price had an organic brain syndrome as well as an anti‑social personality disorder. The doctor expressed the opinion it was most certainly arising out of his long abuse of drugs and alcohol. There was a report by Price that he suffered auditory hallucinations which the doctor said were due to chronic alcohol abuse.

He expressed the opinion that in relation to the charges before the Court the disturbance in his brain functioning would have led to some impairment in his ability to control his actions. The doctor said that loss of control would not have been of sufficient degree to give him a defence under s 27 of the Criminal Code. He took the view that Price was fit to stand trial. However, he said that his mental state is such that this should be regarded as a significant mitigating factor in the man's sentence.

Price is aged 27 years and over a period of 10 years has accumulated some three pages of criminal history. That criminal history includes offences of assault, unlawful…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [1992] QCA 229
Case: [1992] QCA 229
Decision Date: 2 June 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against the sentence imposed on Michael Brian Price, who had pleaded guilty to four charges arising from a single incident. The charges included assault occasioning bodily harm, dangerous driving, and wilful and unlawful damage to property. The incident involved Price entering a medical centre while intoxicated, threatening the doctor with a shotgun, and subsequently driving his car through the centre's glass doors, causing injury to a cleaner who intervened. Price also damaged a car belonging to the cleaner's wife.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate, and if the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offenses and serve as a deterrent to others. The court considered the psychiatric evidence indicating Price's organic brain syndrome and anti-social personality disorder, which arose from chronic drug and alcohol abuse. The sentencing judge had imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment and two years' probation, with a requirement for psychiatric treatment. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence should be more severe to denounce the conduct and act as a deterrent.

The court found that while rehabilitation was an important aspect of sentencing, the gravity of Price's actions warranted a stronger denunciation. The Court of Appeal set aside the original sentence and imposed a sentence of two years and nine months imprisonment, with no probation order. Additionally, Price was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence indefinitely. The court emphasized the importance of continued psychiatric treatment for Price during his imprisonment.

Orders