Vetters v Commissioner of Police

[2008] QDC 143

[2008] QDC 143

DISTRICT COURT

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SENIOR JUDGE TRAFFORD-WALKER

No 3415 of 2007

GKW	Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/06/2008

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  On the 31st of October 2007 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of an offence of public nuisance and breach of domestic violence order and a failure to appear.  In relation to the public nuisance offence he was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.  In relation to the breach of domestic violence order he was sentence to 6 months imprisonment.  And for failure to appear he was convicted but not further punished. 
The sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate were cumulative but concurrent with one another. 

The appellant appeals to this Court on the basis that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and secondly that the Magistrate should have set an earlier parole eligibility date than he did.  I shall set out briefly the circumstances of the offences for which imprisonment was imposed.

Late at night on the 25th of May at 2007 the appellant became involved in an argument with a 55 year old male.  The appellant punched the victim and then threw a metal cigarette lighter at him, hitting him in the head causing a large gash to his forward.  A domestic violence order was in place to protect the appellant's partner from the 16th of April 2007 to 16th April 2008.  The conditions of that order were that the appellant was to be of good behaviour to his partner and not commit any acts of violence towards her. 

At about 9.30 p.m. on the 17th of July at 2007, the appellant verbally abused and threatened her.  He then picked up a brick and threw it towards her, narrowly missing her.  Neighbours and other persons intervened and assisted and protected the appellant's partner.  The appellant then threatened violence against them.  Shortly afterwards the police were called and the police arrived, but in the meantime the appellant had left the area.

His criminal history is extensive, covering many offences of violence.  The offence against his partner, when one of course looks at the circumstances, the domestic violence order was in place.  Such orders are there for the protection of females and unless they are going to have some effect, then the protection is sought by such orders is just illusory.  Persons must be aware that if they breach such orders, use or threaten violence that punishment will follow. 

In the circumstances of his history, I take into consideration of course his age, but with all those factors the sentences imposed and the fact that they were ordered to be cumulative are not excessive in the circumstances.  Coming down to the question of when the parole eligibility date should have been set, unfortunately the Magistrate didn't have a lot of material before and some of it seems to be quite confusing.  With that difficulty, following it through, even with the assistance of Counsel, but what seems perfectly clear is that the Magistrate was led to believe that he had to wait for the original sentence which the appellant was serving before he could set a parole eligibility date.  That isn't the situation.  He was perfectly entitled to set an earlier parole eligibility date than he did.

Taking all these factors into account and having regard to what I think the Magistrate had intended, I think that had he been able to, he would have set an earlier parole eligibility date.  In the circumstances, I think that the parole eligibility date should be set at April of this year and on these matters the parole eligibility date is set for Friday, the 4th of April.

So the appeal is allowed to that extent.  The fact is, of course, that the - if he is released at an earlier stage he will be subject to terms and conditions of parole for a lengthy period.

-----