Regina v Jason Glen Hammond

[2006] NSWDC 75

CITATION:	Regina v Jason Glen Hammond [2006] NSWDC 75
HEARING DATE(S):	22/5/06
JUDGMENT DATE:	30 June 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Convicted; Sentenced 9 months imprisonment - suspended - s12 C(SP)A on entry into GBB - conditions applying
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentencing - Assault Police occasioning actual bodily harm. Nature of offence - Police called to domestic violence situation - s12 C(SP)A suspended sentence and good behaviour bond - conditions - full time rehabilitation - back-up charges.
LEGISLATION CITED:	s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
PARTIES:	Regina Jason Glen Hammond (Offender)
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/61/0059
COUNSEL:	Mr E. Wilson, Public Defender (offender)
SOLICITORS:	Mr. J.A. May (Director of Public Prosecutions) Aboriginal Legal Service (offender)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Jason Glen Hammond appears before me on one indictable charge, namely assaulting police officer in the execution of duty, and occasioning to that officer, namely Leon Lincoln, actual bodily harm. That offence occurred between 1.45 and 2pm on 13 November 2005.

2 There are a number of back up offences, which were before the Local Court, which I am also asked to deal with. One of them is resisting police between 1.35 and 2pm, namely Senior Constable Matthew Dixon, and another is resisting Senior Constable Leon Lincoln at the same time while each of those officers were in the course of the execution of his duty. There is a further offence of assaulting Matthew Dixon, a police officer, while he was executing his duty.

3 The situation is that the offender was charged on 6 November 2005 with contravening an apprehended domestic violence order. He was refused bail and was before the Local Court, Dubbo, on 7 November 2005. One of the terms of bail given was that he was not to approach or contact Glenda Weldon. At 1:35 on 13 November a number of police attended 41 Munnell Street, Gulargambone in respect of what was said to be a domestic violence incident involving the offender and the said Glenda Weldon.

4 The agreed facts appear to be that she was sitting on the verandah and told police that the offender was inside. They arrested him for being in breach of his bail. They were standing waiting for the offender to grab some belongings and for some reason, unclear to me, Senior Constable Lincoln grabbed the offender by his right arm; Constable Dixon grabbed him by his left. The offender commenced to resist by flexing his arms and demanding that the police let him go. There was a struggle during which the offender’s head hit a broken glass pane. He sustained a small cut. It was at this point, and perhaps because of that, it is hard to know, he bit Constable Lincoln twice on the left arm, once, it is said, leaving deep marks causing the hand to bleed, and there were marks on his left elbow.

5 It should be understood that in this day and age, particularly among people who have had custodial experience, the biting of somebody causes them tremendous stress because of the fear of HIV or hepatitis. That is because those sorts of diseases, which are, pretty lethal and disenabling diseases are transmitted through saliva transfer.

6 The police sought to place handcuffs on the offender. There was further struggle. There was yet further struggle as they moved towards the doorway. During this struggle the offender turned at or to Constable Dixon and spat at his face. In fairness to the police and to those who record the facts, no saliva came out. In days of old that sort of detailed report would not have been made. It is actually a credit to them that they were frank and honest about it. Nonetheless, Dixon was fearful of the actions of the offender. There was further struggle as they sought to put him in the vehicle. The offender does not present as a very tall or well built second rower, but perhaps more in the Matthew Johns mould, short and stocky. I would imagine he could be difficult to handle if he was riled up, as it would seem he was at the time.

7 The objective seriousness of the offence is that it is an interference with the administration of criminal justice. Police are there to enforce the laws and to protect those who are vulnerable or feel in peril. To interfere with an officer doing his duty is to strike at the heart of the administration of the criminal law, which in turn is to strike at the heart of justice. So in that sense the offence is serious. The police have a perfect entitlement to look to the Courts to protect them from assaults, and to assist them as best we can in doing their duty. They did not ask to go to these premises. They were called.

8 The offender has a record, including a record for assaulting police. There are a number of assaults in this record, to the extent that any of them are domestic violence related assaults, he should think seriously about whether that is a manly way in which to behave. If they are assaults on other men that is a different proposition, but if they are assaults on women, as I suspect they might be, then he ought to think whether, when he writes his biography, he wants to say to people ‘well I’m proud of having done those assaults’.

9 What is clear is that he has a drug and alcohol problem. His record is primarily in the Local Court. He has had community service in the past and he has had imprisonment in the past.

10 These offences may have been in breach of a bond and bail. That is also regarded as a feature which aggravates the criminality, the reasoning being this, that if the Court lets somebody free on bail or somebody free on a bond it is upon an understanding, obviously, that those people will not offend again. The subsequent offending conduct amounts to a breach of the understanding or, as it were, tacit agreement between the Court on the one hand and the offender on the other. I am about to release you now, on a s 12 bond, instead of putting you in gaol for another while, on the basis that you will behave yourself. If you choose not to behave yourself, notwithstanding that you have indicated to me you will behave yourself, the Court takes that as a personal affront, so it aggravates the seriousness of the criminality.

11 Judith Hammond is your mother. There is material here that indicates she has gone through a kidney transplant and that it would be beneficial to her if you were free. She no doubt will be much less stressed knowing that you are at a rehabilitation clinic. This offender was born in February 1979. He is twenty-seven years old.

12. There is no probation and parole report. I know nothing about him.

WILSON: There wasn’t a report, your Honour, the matter came from committal for sentence and it was moved to Bourke without a report being ordered, so the material before your Honour consists of the evidence that Mr Hammond gave in Bourke.

HIS HONOUR: I don’t have that before me.

WILSON: 24 May, where he outlined his background and early introduction to alcohol and drugs.

HIS HONOUR: I was just trying to pick up his family. He has got a partner?

WILSON: Yes, your Honour, she was the person involved in this matter.

HIS HONOUR: Made the complaint.WILSON: And there are five children, all here today, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So I can say he has the support of that family.

WILSON: He does, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And the grandmother.

WILSON: His mother is very supportive of him.

HIS HONOUR: He has indicated a willingness to do the Glen Rehabilitation Program and that has been instrumental in my taking the course that I intend to take. What I propose to do is to take cognisance of the seven months and eighteen days that he has already done in custody and to effect his release today, to sentence him to a term of imprisonment of nine months, conditional upon him entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of nine months I will suspend that sentence.

13 The conditions of the bond are these:-

• That he make his way by 4 July, that being the date when there is a bed available, between the hours of 9am and 12 noon, to the Glen Centre at Chittaway Point and enter into the Glen Alcohol and Other Drug Rehabilitation Centre;

• That whilst there he obey the directions of the manager of the centre;

• That he do all in his power to effect his rehabilitation;

• That he not leave The Glen unless authorised by the manager so to do;

• I require him to be supervised by the Probation and Parole Service for the nine month period and for them to notify me in the event that he should depart from The Glen before his authorised date;

• He will accept such counselling from the Probation and Parole office once released from The Glen as they require of him, particularly focusing on issues of anger management and domestic violence, and drug and alcohol counselling.

Mr Hammond, is any of that beyond you?

OFFENDER: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do you feel you can do those things?

OFFENDER: Yes, I do.

HIS HONOUR: I want you to remember that, because if it should be the case if you come back I will remind you that I asked you whether you felt you were able to do it, and you indicated to me you could. Is that understood?

OFFENDER: Yes.

14 The formal orders I make are these. Would you stand up please. I convict you of all four offences. So far as the summary offences are concerned I sentence you to a period of imprisonment to commence on the date of your arrest which was 13 November and to expire on 29 June, lest there be any doubt about it, 29 June 2006. That is yesterday. I do that pursuant to s 166 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

14 In respect of the current offence, which is the indictable offence, I take into account the time that you have served already in respect of that offence.

I sentence you to nine months imprisonment. Subject to your entering into a bond to be of good behaviour, which I understand you intend to do, I suspend the operation of that sentence for a period of nine months, conditional upon you entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for nine months, commencing today.

• That bail will be conditioned that you attend The Glen between the hours of 9am and 12 noon on 4 July 2006, which is a Tuesday, at Chittaway Point;

• That you obey the reasonable directions of the manager of The Glen until your authorised release by them;
• That you are not to leave The Glen unless authorised by the manager, and that you are to accept the supervision of Probation and Parole and obey all reasonable directions of Probation and Parole;

• That you will participate in programs that they may have and particularly programs relating to drug and alcohol abuse or management and domestic violence and anger management.

• The sentence that you have had imposed upon you is one that is already served. It expired yesterday.

• I order your release from custody in respect of those matters, but I order you to be placed in custody - you will still remain in the Court until I can find somebody to do so - for the purposes of attending upstairs to enter the bond.

CORRECTIVE SERVICES OFFICER: Excuse sir, may I take him downstairs, he’s got his papers--

HIS HONOUR: No. You can bring the papers up here if you like. He is to remain here in custody and I understand you want the papers--

CORRECTIVE SERVICES OFFICER: I understand, sir.

HIS HONOUR: In the absence of a warrant you can’t take him anywhere but you can bring the papers to him. Thank you.

**********