R v Prindable

[1979] FCA 24

C r i m i n a l Law - S e n t e n c e - 1111prlsonment - P a r o l e -

P e r i o d d u r l n g which p r i s o n e r n o t e l i g l h l e f o r p a r o l e -

S u s p e n s i o n of s e n t e n c e - Review o f d e c i s i o n t o suspend

s e n t e n c e - P r i n c i p l e s - P a r o l e o f P r i s o n e r s Ord inance -

1976 ( N . T . ) .

The Queen v . A r t h u r J o h n P r i n d a b l e

---U -- - -

No. NTG 16 o f 1978

Coram : Erennnn , G a l l o p and Lochhar t J J .

Date : 9 March 1 9 i 9 .

I

I N THE FEDERAL C(XIRT	)	>
OF AUSTRALIA	j
1 No. NTG 16 o f 1978
NOR?HERN TERRITORY	1 1
DISTRIfl REGISTRY	1
1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREiW COURT OF

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

A p p e l l a n t

AND

- : ARTHUR J O H N PRINDABLE

Respondent

CORAM : BRENNAN, GALLOP AND LOCKHART JJ

9 t h day o f March,	1979.
THE COURT

These a r e a p p e a l s a g a i n s t s e n t e n c e s imposed i n t h e

Supreme C o u r t o f t h e N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y f o l l o w i n g t h e

c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t on f o u r c h a r g e s o f s h o o t i n g

a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s w i t h i n t e n t t o r e s l s t o r p r e v e n t h i s

l a w f u l a p p r e h e n s i o n .

When t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d i t s v e r d i c t , M r . J u s t i c e

Muirhead h e a r d s u b m i s s i o n s on s e n t e n c e and remanded t h e

r e sponden t i n c u s t o d y i n o r d e r t h a t h i s Honour might o b t a i n

t h e b e n e f l t o f a p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t and a r e p o r t on t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s psychiatric c o n d i t i o n . Nine days l a t e r no

p r e - s e n t e n c e r e p o r t had b e e n o b t a l n e d and no psychiatrist

had examined t h e r e s p o n d e n t . I t w a s t h e n 2 1 December 1978.

The respondent asked t h e l e a r n e d sen tenc ing judge t o d e a l

wi th him wi thout w a i t l n g f o r those r e p o r t s , and his Honour

acceded t o t h a t r e q u e s t .

On 2 2 December 1978 h i s Honour sen tenced t h e

respondent on each charge t o f o u r y e a r s ' imprisonment, wi th a

non-parole p e r l o d o f 18 months, and ordered t h a t t h e

sen tences be s e rved c o n c u r r e n t l y , and he f u r t h e r o rdered

t h a t t h e s en t ences be suspended and t h a t t h e respondent be

" r e l e a s e d on h i s g i v i n g s e c u r i t y himself i'n t h e sum of

$1,000 wi th one s u r e t y i n t h e sum of $1,000 t o be of good

behaviour f o r t h r e e years" .

The Crown appea ls a g a i n s t t h i s s en t ence , submitting

t h a t t h e s en t ence i s s o inadequa te a s t o mani fes t an e r r o r

i n p r i n c i p l e on t h e p a r t o f t h e l ea rned sen tenc ing judge.

Although no e r r o r appears on t h e f ace of h i s Honour's

remarks, t h e s en t ence imposed i s s a i d t o f a l l s o f a r s h o r t

of t h e range o f s en t ences which would be d i c t a t e d by t h e

e x e r c l s e of a sound j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n t h a t t h i s Court

should - in te rvene and impose a sen tence which i s a p p r o p r i a t e

i n t h e c i rcumstances .

The r e l e v a n t e v e n t s took p l a c e between t h e l a t e

a f t e rnoon o f 2 9 J anua ry 1978 and 3.00 o ' c lock on t h e

fo l lowing morning. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t he respondent engaged

i n v i o l e n t and b i z a r r e behaviour i n s p i r e d by a combination

of pas s ion and a l c o h o l .

The respondent r o s e about 1.30 p.m. on 29 January ,

and soon t h e r e a f t e r drove h l s c a r a s h o r t d i s t a n c e t o v i s i t

some f r i e n d s by t h e name of F i t z g e r a l d and Whitbread a t

t h e i r premlses a t Coconut Grove i n t h e suburb o f N i g h t c l i f f ,

t he suburb i n which t h e respondent h imse l f l i v e d .

The premises of M r . Whitbread c o n s i s t e d of a caravan

owned by M r . and Mrs. Boyle. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e caravan

occupied by M r . Whitbread, t h e r e was on t h e same land ano ther

caravan and a r e s idence occupied by t h e Boyle f ami ly .

Soon a f t e r t h e respondent a r r i v e d a t M r . Whitbread's

premises he and h i s f r i e n d Whitbread went t o a nearby s e l f -

s e r v i c e s t o r e and purchased a 26-ounce b o t t l e o f t e q u l l a .

They r e t u r n e d t o Whl tbread ' s ca ravan a t about 2 . 3 0 p.m. and

commenced t o d r ink t h e l i q u o r t hey had purchased. The

respondent a t e no th ing d u r i n g t h e whole o f t h a t day, excep t

perhaps a few lemons which i t appears a r e g e n e r a l l y consumed

i n con junc t ion wi th t e q u i l a .

They were j o ined by v a r i o u s people dur ing t h e course

of t h e a f t e rnoon and con t inued t o d r l n k v i r t u a l l y f o r t he

whole o f t h e remainder of t h e a f t e r n o o n . I n t h e course of

t h e a f t e rnoon another l a r g e b o t t l e of t e q u i l a was purchased,

t h e g r e a t e r p a r t of which has consumed.

The evidence c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e respondent

became i n c r e a s i n g l y intoxicated d u r i n g t h e course of t h e

a f t e r n o o n . By the t ime t h e even t s r e l e v a n t t o t h e proceedings

b e f o r e us commenced, t h e respondent was i n an advanced s t a t e

of i n t o x i c a t i o n .

Mrs. Boyle a r r i v e d a t h e r p r e m l s e s and d u r i n g

t h e a f t e r n o o n s h e n o t i c e d t h e g roup , which i n c l u d e d t h e

r e s p o n d e n t , d r i n k i n g . They did n o t c a u s e any d i s t u r b a n c e

u n t l l 6 .30 o t 7 . 3 0 t h a t e v e n i n g . She n o t i c e d t h a t t h e r e

was c o n s i d e r a b l e argument be tween members o f t h e group,

which i n c l u d e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t , and some k i n d o f h o r s e p l a y .

Wlth Mrs. Boyle was a man i n h i s f i f t i e s who s a t down n i t h

h e r t o s h a r e t h e e v e n i n g meal . Not l o n g a f t e r , t h e r e s p o n d e n t

e n t e r e d t h e k i t c h e n , a t t a c k e d t h l s man and abused hlm i n

s t r o n g l a n g u a g e . The r e s p o n d e n t was p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r a i n e d

by o t h e r s who came t o t h e a l d o f t h e o l d e r man, and i n s o

d o i n g i n f l i c t e d some minor i n j u r i e s upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t . He

was thrown o u t o f t h e house , mouthing vengeance and showing m a n i f e s t s i g n s o f a n g e r and h o s t i l i t y and i n d i c a t i n g by h l s

words t h a t he would r e t u r n and do p h y s i c a l harm t o t h e members

o f t h e Boyle h o u s e h o l d . Mrs. Boyle was convinced t h a t t h e

r e s p o n d e n t was s e r i o u s i n what he s a i d , s o s h e took t h e

w l s e p r e c a u t i o n of h a v l n g h e r f a m i l y and v i s l t o r s l e a v e t h e

house . The r e s p o n d e n t went t o h i s own home and o b t a l n e d an

a u t o m a t i c 12-gauge s h o t g u n and a h i g h powercd magnum r l f l e

t o g e t h e r w i t h ammunltlon f o r b o t h weapons. He t h e n r e t u r n e d

on f o o t t o t h e Boyle h o u s e , a b o u t a m i l e away.

Havlng t h u s armed h i m s e l f and r e t u r n e d t o t h e Boylc

p r e m i s e s , he s h o t t h e l o c k o f f t h e f r o n t door and l o c k s o f f

o t h e r doors I n s i d e t h e house once he had g a l n e d c n t r y . lie

s l lo t a t v a r l o u s household e f f c s t s h l t h i n t h e p r c m i s c s ,

i n c l u d i n g a television s e t , r e f r i g e r a t o r and dcep i r c e z e .

The p o l i c e were c a l l e d t o t h e p r e m l s e s and two

p o l l c e c a r s a r r i v e d a t t h e s c e n e . The f i r s t was a

divisional van and t h e s e c o n d was a CIB c a r containing

Detective-Sergeant C a r o l a n and D e t e c t i v e - C o n s t a b l e Grass .

D e t e c t i v e s C a r o l a n and G r a s s a r r i v e d a t t h e Boyle p remises

a t a b o u t 8 .50 p.m. , t h a t i s some s i x h o u r s o r more a f t e r

t h e r e s p o n d e n t had commenced d r i n k i n g . The r e s p o n d e n t i n

t h e meantime d r o v e a v e h i c l e n o r t h i n Coconut Grove away

from t h e s c e n e . The C I B c a r gave c h a s e . I t d i d n o t b e a r

any l n s i g n l a o f t h e p o l x e f o r c e upon i t , b u t was f i t t e d

w i t h a s i r e n and a p o r t a b l e . f l a s h i n g l i g h t b o t h o f h h i c h

were o p e r a t e d . The c h a s e d i d n o t l a s t v e r y l o n g . The

r e s p o n d e n t ' s v e h i c l e g o t a f l a t t y r e and he d rove i t I n t o

t h e dr iveway o f t h e b o t t l e d e p a r t m e n t o f t h e h o t e l known

a s t h e Dolphin H o t e l . By t h e t i m e t h e r e s p o n d e n t had

s t o p p e d h i s v e h l c l e , t h e C I B c a r was c l o s e b e h l n d . Not

f a r b e h i n d i t i n t u r n was t h e d l v l s i o n a l van . S e r g e a n t

C a r o l a n who h a s t h e p a s s e n g e r i n t h e CIB c a r h a s

somewhere be tween 20 t o 40 f e e t b e h i n d t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

v e h l c l e a t a t i m e when t h e r e s p o n d e n t jumped o u t o f h i s

v e h i c l e , f a c e d t h e CIB v e h l c l e and p o l n t e d t h e s h o t g u n .

He h e l d it i n a h i p p o s l t i o n and p o i n t e d i t d i r e c t l y a t

t h e p o l l c e c a r which a t t h a t s t a g e had approached w i t h ~ n

a b o u t 20 f e e t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s v c h l c l e . B e f o r e e l t h c r

o f t h e p o l i c e o f f l c e r s c o u l d a l l g h t I rom t h e C 1 6 l c h l c l e ,

t h e r e s p o n d e n t f i r e d two s h o t s from h i s s h o t g u n i n i t s

d i r e c t i o n . The s h o t s s t r u c k t h e v e h i c l e i n d l f f c r e n t p l a c c s .

The two s h o t s having been f l r e d , Sergeant Carolan

a l i g h t e d from t h e v e h i c l e and took cover a t t he r e a r

passenger s i d e of i t . A t t h a t t ime, t h e d i v i s i o n a l van

p u l l e d up c l o s e t o t h e CIB c a r . The respondent f i r e d

ano the r s h o t i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e CIB c a r . The

respondent t hen f l r e d two more s h o t s i n quick succes s ion

i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e C I B c a r where Sergeant Carolan

was t a k i n g cover . A t l e a s t one of t h e s h o t s h i t t h a t

v e h l c l e and d e f l a t e d a t y r e .

The t h r e e v e h i c l e s were a l l i n t h e open on t h e

apron o f t h e driveway of t h e b o t t l e department of t h e

h o t e l . Soon a f t e rwards , t h e respondent went i n t o t he

h o t e l through t h e b o t t l e department and ordered persons

occupying t h e h o t e l t o l eave immediately, waving t h e shotgun

i n t h e i r g e n e r a l	d i r e c t i o n .	Not	u n n a t u r a l l y ,	they	complied
qu ick ly .

The p o l i c e e n c i r c l e d t h e h o t e l and du r ing t h e

n i g h t a t t empted t o persuade t h e respondent by a v a r i e t y of

means t o l a y down h i s arms and s u r r e n d e r . I n t h e course of

t he evening o r e a r l y morning two f u r t h e r s h o t s h e r e f l r e d

by t h e respondent ou t of t h e door of t h e sa loon b a r i n t h e

g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n o f a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n nearby. A l a r g e

group o f people had congregated nea r t h a t p o s i t i o n .

The respondent had ea t en no food du r ing t h e course

of t h e day.

During t h e course of t h e n i g h t and e a r l y

morning, facilities were e s t a b l i s h e d whereby t h e

respondent was a b l e t o speak by te lephone t o an aun t

of h l s i n Br i sbane , t o a p r i e s t and t o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s

a l l of whom endeavoured t o calm him down and persuade him t o s u r r e n d e r . A t about 3 . 3 0 a.m., t h e respondent

su r r ende red , was taken i n t o custody and l a t e r charged

wi th t h e o f f ences which l e d t o h i s c o n v i c t i o n s .

I t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t crimes o f v i o l e n c e should

be v i s i t e d w i t h punishment s u f f i c i e n t l y s e v e r e t o

demonstrate t h e community's concern t h a t i t s members be

allowed t o l i v e i n peace and t o demonstra te t h a t t h e

c o u r t s , f o r t h e i r p a r t , w i l l t ake whatever a c t i o n is

a p p r o p r i a t e t o d e t e r o t h e r s who mlght d i s t u r b t h a t peace.

The r e sponden t ' s conduct was v i o l e n t i n t h e

extreme du r ing an extended p e r l o d . When t h e p o l i c e , whose

duty it was t o endeavour t o c o n t a i n t h a t v i o l e n c e , a r r i v e d

on the scene a t t h e Dolphin H o t e l , t h e i r l i v e s were pu t

a t r i s k and t h e f a c t t h a t they d i d n o t l o s e t h e i r l i v e s

i s a m a t t e r of good f o r t u n e .

To impose anyth lng l e s s t han t h e head sentences

which h l s Honour d i d impose would have g iven no acknowledgment

t o t h e importance o f s e c u r i n g t h e peace of t h e community and

t h e s a f e t y o f p o l i c e o f f i c e r s whose du ty s o f r e q u e n t l y

r e q u i r e s them, i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e p u b l i c , t o con ta in

e x h i b i t i o n s of v i o l e n t behaviour .

Although h i s Honour imposed p e n a l t i e s f o r each

conv ic t ion , they a l l a r o s e o u t of t he same s e t o f f a c t s

and wi th in a l i m i t e d t ime and i t was app rop r i a t e t o o rde r

t h a t t h e s en t ences be s e r v e d concur ren t ly . The head

sen tences imposed by h i s Honour	appear t o be	e n t i r e l y
a p p r o p r i a t e .

We now t u r n t o t h e q u e s t i o n of t he s p e c i f i c a t i o n

of a non-parole p e r i o d . I n t h e Northern T e r r i t o r y o f

-

A u s t r a l i a a judge sen t enc ing a convic ted person i n r e l a t i o n

t o o f fences i nvo lv ing a term of imprisonment of 1 2 months

o r longer is r e q u i r e d t o s p e c i f y a non-parole p e r i o d ,

except where t h e c o u r t cons ide r s t h a t t h e n a t u r e of t h e

offence o r o f f ences o r t h e an tecedents of t h e o f f e n d e r do

n o t war ran t t h e s p e c i f y i n g o f a l e s s e r term of imprisonment

o r i f t h e o f f e n d e r i s s en t enced t o imprisonment f o r l i f e ;

s ee Paro le of P r i s o n e r s Ordinance 1976(N.T.) .

The non-pa ro l e p e r i o d which h i s Honour f i x e d no

doubt r e f l e c t e d h i s Honour's view a s t o t h e p r o s p e c t s of

t h e r e sponden t ' s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . The p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s r e p o r t

s t a t e d t h a t t h e respondent r e a l i z e d "upon r e f l e c t i o n t h a t

h i s behaviour was r e p r e h e n s i b l e and of course cou ld have

r e s u l t e d i n t ragedy". The evidence c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d a

c a p a c i t y i n t h e respondent t o reform and t h i s i s most

m a t e r i a l i n t h e d e c i s i o n whether t o f i x a non-paro le p e r i o d

and t h e l e n g t h of t h e p e r i o d ; s ee Power v. The Queen (1974)

131 C.L.R.623 a t p.629. H i s Honour gave f u l l weight t o t hose

c i rcumstances i n ba l anc ing elements of punishment and

d e t e r r e n c e a g a i n s t t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .

Making due p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e p a r o l e

system, h i s Honour was j u s t i f i e d i n t h e c i rcumstances of

t he se o f f ences i n f i x i n g a p e r i o d of 18 months dur lng

which t h e respondent w l l l n o t become e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e .

We should r ega rd t h i s p e r i o d a s t h e minimum p e r i o d of

imprisonment t o be s e r v e d , f o r t h e cr imes committed c a l l e d

f o r such d e t e n t i o n .

His Honour went beyond t h e f i x i n g o f a non-parole

pe r iod . Though n o t i n g t h a t a long sen tence o f

imprisonment was mer i t ed by t h e o f f ences themselves , he

was concerned - and r l g h t l y concerned - t o determine

whether t h e p rospec t s of r e h a b i l i t a t i n g t h e respondent

cou ld be met by suspending t h e s en t ence upon which he had

r e so lved . He s a i d :

"bly anx ie ty has been t o determine whether my duty

t o t h e community t o impose sen t ences which may

ope ra t e a s a d e t e r r e n t t o t hose who a r e tempted

t o commit such crimes - cr imes o f t h i s n a t u r e -

whether t h a t du ty enables me t o g i v e you one f i n a l

chance. R igh t ly o r wrongly t h i s I have decided t o

do, and I only t r u s t you r e a l i s e t h a t i f you

should e v e r o f f end aga in you w i l l n o t r e c e i v e

ano the r oppor tun i ty and you a r e l i k e l y t o spend

a long , long t ime i n custody. "

The review by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t o f a s e n t e n c i n g judge ' s

d i s c r e t i o n t o suspend sen tence invo lves t h e same p r i n c i p l e s

a s a review of t h e j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n t o impose t h e head

sen tence i t s e l f : s ee The Queen v . Shueard (1972) 4 S.A.S.R.

36 a t p .43. I f t h e s en t ence a s a whole i s seen t o be s o

d i sp ropor t iona t e t o t h e s en t ence which t h e c i rcumstances

r e q u i r e a s t o i n d i c a t e an e r r o r of p r i n c i p l e t h e a p p e l l a t e

c o u r t should i n t e r v e n e .

The r e s u l t of h i s Honour's d e c i s i o n t o suspend

t h e s e n t e n c s w a s , i n o u r view, t o produce a sen tence s o

l e n i e n t t h a t i t d i d n o t accord wi th t h e gene ra l moral

sense of t h e community and s o l e n i e n t t h a t i t was u n l i k e l y

t o be a s u f f i c i e n t d e t e r r e n t t o o t h e r s ; s ee p e r Jordan C . J .

i n R. v. Geddes (1936) 36 S.R. (N.S.W.)554; Chann6n v. R. -

(1978) 20 ALR 1 a t p . S .

There was t h e r e f o r e an e r r o r o f principle i n h i s

Honour's sentence and i t t h u s becomes our duty t o f i x t he

sen tence which we t h i n k a p p r o p r i a t e . " In t h e circumstances"

a s Smithers J . s a i d i n Anderson v.	R.	(1977)	1 9 ALR 2 1 2 a t
-

p.221, "one i s r e q u i r e d t o cons ide r what sen tence would

r e p r e s e n t t he a p p r o p r i a t e du ly propor t ioned and p rope r ly

balanced sentence". Such a sen tence must accord wi th t h e

gene ra l moral sense o f t h e community and be a d e t e r r e n t

t o o t h e r s who may be tempted t o engage i n crimes of v io l ence .

The e r r o r i n h i s Honour's sen tence was manifes ted by the

suspension of t h e o r d e r o f imprisonment and i t can be

remedied by omi t t i ng from t h e o rde r t h a t p a r t of h i s Honour's

o rde r which suspended t h e o r d e r of imprisonment. I n t h e

r e s u l t , we th ink t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e o rde r should r e q u i r e

t h e respondent t o undergo a c u s t o d i a l s en t ence of f o u r y e a r s ,

w i th a minimum non-pa ro l e p e r i o d of 18 months.

The judgment o f t h e Court i s t h a t t h e appea l

be a l lowed and t h a t t h e respondent b e imprisoned on

each cha rge f o r a p e r i o d o f f o u r y e a r s , t h e s en t ences

t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y , and t h a t a t e rm of 18 months'

imprisonment be s p e c i f i e d d u r i n g which t h e rcspondent be

n o t e l i g i b l e t o be r e l e a s e d upon p a r o l e , and i t i s

o rde red t h a t t h e cause be r e m i t t e d t o t h e Supreme Court

of t h e Northern T e r r i t o r y f o r e x e c u t i o n o f t h i s judgment.

I cert ify that th is and the 10 preceding pages

are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment

herein of the Court (Brennan,Gallop and Lockhart JJ) .

Associate t o B r

Dated: 27 ?.larch 1979.

i