R v Trevor-Hunt

[1995] QCA 400

[1995] QCA 400

COURT OF APPEAL
MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

AMBROSE J

CA No 219 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

NATHAN BEVIS TREVOR-HUNT Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 26/07/95
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for leave to appeal
against sentences imposed on 2 June this year by a Stipendiary
Magistrate. The offences involved occurred in September and
November last year and March of this year. They were
respectively offences of receiving, breaking, entering and
stealing, assault occasioning bodily harm and a further
offence of assault occasioning bodily harm and two wilful
damage offences.

The circumstances are set out in the outline of counsel for the respondent and the circumstances as there appearing are accepted by counsel for the applicant. This then sufficiently outlines the behaviour that was involved. In September of last year the applicant was spoken to by the police after he attempted to negotiate a stolen cheque at the Bank of Queensland at Fortitude Valley.

The explanation the applicant gave was that he was doing it for someone called Brian in exchange for $50. He was charged and given bail since the cheque was, indeed, a stolen one. Then in November of last year police were called to the Woodridge medical centre where they observed a front window smashed. The applicant was inside wearing socks over his hands and loading items into a plastic bag. As the applicant attempted to leave the building he saw the police and jumped from a window on to an officer hitting him in the mouth.

The police officer suffered some personal injuries which consisted of bruising and grazing. Damage totalling $425 had been done to the medical centre. The applicant was then charged and granted bail.

On 4 March the police, in response to a call, went to the Mater Public Hospital where the applicant had punched a male nurse in the right eye because that nurse would not, as the applicant claimed, let him do what he wanted. The nurse suffered severe pain and headaches from the blow and his prescription glasses were damaged. The applicant also there had punched a hole in a wall of the hospital.

The applicant was dealt with as a young offender. He had been born on 11 November of 1971. The main difficulty, however, which his case presented was his lengthy criminal history. The Magistrate imposed these sentences; five months for the receiving, 12 months for the breaking, entering and stealing, two months for the assault occasioning bodily harm in one case and five in the other and two months each for the wilful damage charges. The effective sentence then was one of 12 months imprisonment.

Of particular seriousness were the facts that the applicant was on a suspended sentence for stealing at the time of the commission of all of the current offences and he was on bail for each set of offences at the time that the next subject offence was committed. His response then at the time of the subject offences was most disappointing, that is, his lack of response more strictly to the obligations to observe the law.

His past criminal history unfortunately demonstrates

something of the same attitude.

His criminal history sheet which is lengthy starts with an
offence relating to drugs in March of 1991 when the applicant
was, it would appear as a matter of calculation, 19 years of
age. There are a number of drug related offences which then
appear and his first sentence of imprisonment appears to be a
seven day term imposed in June 1993 for contempt involved in a
breach of a Bail Act. Then in July 1993 he breached a
community service order which had been imposed in February of
the year before. In October 1993 he was sentenced to a one
month term, again, for breach of the Bail Act but then in
November 1993 it can be seen that he was convicted of breaking
and entering with intent. He was relatively leniently treated
on that occasion being simply convicted and fined. For making
a false declaration in February 1994 he was imprisoned for
three months. For failure to pay a fine imposed in July 1993
he was, in February 1994, ordered to be imprisoned for three
months concurrent with a sentence then being served.
In April 1994 on charges of stealing it was ordered that he be
imprisoned for nine months but with the sentence suspended for
a period of 18 months.

It is unnecessary to set out details of all the other offences which appear. It is sufficient to note that they are extensive and his offending was persistent. The Magistrate clearly concluded, and he was entitled to conclude, that the time had come to appropriately impose a more effective deterrent and the sentence that he imposed cannot, in my opinion, be described as excessive in any degree in the circumstance of the case. I would refuse the application.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

-----