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

v.

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 use of a motor vehicle, dangerous driving, assault occasioning bodily harm, as well offences of dishonesty.  In 1986 he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years on charges that included burglary.  On 13 February 1992 he appeared in the District Court at Gympie on a charge of bodily harm and was ordered to do 120 hours community service and placed on two years’ probation.

The District Court Judge who sentenced him in respect of the present charges was the same Judge who had dealt with him in Gympie.  The sentencing remarks that were made were made generally in the course of submissions by Price's counsel.  It appears that His Honour was particularly influenced by the psychiatric report.  He observed that the mental state of Price was a mitigating factor and settled on the sentencing option of imposing six months’ imprisonment and ordering two years’ probation.  He included in the probation the order that he receive whatever psychiatric, psychological or medical treatment the probation officer directs.

This is an appeal by the Attorney‑General on the basis that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate; the circumstances in which the offences were committed show that Price was willing to use his motor vehicle as a weapon; the circumstances generally are ones which are so outrageous as to call for substantial denunciation by the sentencing Court; it is also important that the sentence should act as a deterrent to other people who may feel that they can vent their anger at others in such a violent way.

Clearly, rehabilitation is also an important part in the sentencing process and it appears that the learned sentencing Judge has particularly attempted to allow for that process.
However, in my opinion, this particular incident is one where
the sentence should clearly speak to the community in a way
that denounces this form of conduct and the sentence should be
one that is at the upper end of the scale that can be imposed.

It is apparent from the material placed before the learned sentencing Judge that psychiatric treatment of a kind that Dr Walsh had in mind will be available whilst Price is in prison. Consequently, there is no need to feel that he will be denied treatment if he is to spend a considerable time in gaol.  It seems to me that, allowing for the time that he has spent on remand, the sentence that was imposed should be set aside and that in lieu there should be a sentence of two years and nine
months.  The order for probation should be set aside.  It does not seem to me that there is anything in this case to indicate that there should be an order in respect of parole.  The ordinary provisions of the law should apply and at the expiration of half of the sentence Price will be free to apply for parole.

Another matter of considerable importance here is the question of his driving licence.  Previously, after a series of offences, he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for four years.  That period of disqualification expired on 24 June 1990 which was only a

matter of some five months before he committed these offences.
In the circumstances, in my view, he should be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.  There should be no indication of period for that.

It seems to me that his general anti‑social behaviour is such that he should be in the position of showing in due course that he is fit to hold a driver's licence.  So, in my view, the orders of the Court should be that, the appeal is allowed, the sentence of six months is set aside and in lieu thereof a sentence imposed of two years and nine months.  The order for  probation should be set aside and Price should be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence, absolutely.

McPHERSON JA: My brother has so stated the orders he proposes.  I agree with them and I agree with his reasons for disposing of this appeal in that fashion.

PINCUS JA: I also agree.

McPHERSON JA: It may be useful for us to add simply by way of
record that it is plainly desirable that the respondent should
continue to receive psychiatric treatment in prison.

_____