Weazel v Thompson & Brockett

[2007] QDC 101

[2007] QDC 101

NORMAN NUGGETT WEAZEL	Plaintiff
and
NEIL THOMPSON	First Respondent
and
STEVEN BROCKETT	Second Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 14/05/2007

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE BRABAZON QC

No BD1819 of 2006

JUDGMENT Magistrates Court. Mr Weazel found himself in Court and pleaded guilty to obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and to being a public nuisance. He was an aboriginal man originally from Cherbourg, aged then in his early forties. He was an alcoholic, and affected by alcohol at the time. His nephew was arrested by police. He followed the police officers and his nephew into the police office and argued with the police officers there about what they were doing.

He continued to argue and the result was that he was charged with obstructing police. There is no suggestion of any violence. So it might fairly be said that is an offence really at the bottom of the range for that type of offence.

Then, he pleaded guilty to an offence of public nuisance. It public nuisance offence took place after the imposition of a suspended sentence. He was in breach of it. A domestic violence order was in place between Mr Weazel and his partner when (also in Fortitude Valley) he punched her with a closed fist to the head after arguing with her about some family matter. The assault was seen on closed circuit television and the police went and arrested him. The learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of 10 weeks' imprisonment to be wholly suspended for a period of 18 months. 2 JUDGMENT

is, I think, more serious. The police officers spoke to him
in the street, according to their account in a civil way, and
he responded by saying to the police officer, "You're a
fuckhead." He was spoken to police about that. They arrested
him for public nuisance. It was, I am told, in Fortitude
Valley. One might note from his criminal history that all of
his offences seem to have been dealt with in the Brisbane
Magistrates Court. So we might assume he has lived in
Brisbane for a long time.

It can therefore be seen that the breaching offence, though unpleasant and against public order, was not in the same category and not as serious. Under the requirements of the Penalties and Sentences Act, a number of things have to be considered in seeing whether or not it is appropriate to activate the whole of a suspended sentence. The learned Magistrate here was no doubt aware of that.

He then went on to say that the two offences before the Court were not of the higher end of the scale, but that his criminal history caused him very great concern. The Magistrate went on to say that the only appropriate way to deal with the matter was for there to be some deterrence, and therefore that some imprisonment had to be imposed.

He sentenced Mr Weazel to seven days' imprisonment for obstructing police, 14 days' imprisonment for the obscenity which amounted to a public nuisance, and he activated 14 days of the suspended term. It is submitted here that such a response was manifestly excessive, bearing in mind the nature of the offences. 3 JUDGMENT

The history to which the Magistrate referred is now onto its
twelfth page and contains, it seems to be agreed, 10 previous
offences of obstructing police and 38 previous public nuisance
offences. The prosecutor here says that there are about
72 offences overall in the criminal history.

Mr Weazel has been to prison before in earlier years on two or three occasions. The most serious was his sentence in the Supreme Court in 1989 for three years for robbery, when he was ordered to serve six months before being eligible for parole. He also served some other shorter sentences. In recent times, his offences - which might be called "street offences" - have all been dealt with by fines.

It was submitted that a fine here would have been again the appropriate response, and the suspended term could have had its operational period extended by, say, six months.

The prosecution has submitted that the order was not manifestly excessive, being an appropriate response to a persistent offender, and even one in his position - that is to say an aboriginal man who is addicted to alcohol - and it may be assumed had a difficult background.

Counsel have helpfully referred me to some authorities about the view of the Court to those with long histories committing further offences. For example, there is the Queensland decision of Harvey Aston number 2 (1991) 1 Queensland Report 375 at 381, Veen v R No 2 (1998) 164 CLR 465, and Baumer v. R (1988) 166 CLR 51 at 57. I also take into account what Wood J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales said about aboriginal offenders in R v Fernando (1992) 76 A CRIM R 58. 4 JUDGMENT

Having thought about the matter for a time, it seems to me that what the learned Magistrate did was within the range of a sound discretion. The sentences are short, and they are to be served concurrently - Mr Weazel was ordered to serve part of his suspended sentence at the same time as the 14-day punishment for the obscene insult to the police officer.

The length of his criminal history indicates that fines and the like are making no impression upon the man. It seems to me to be a reasonable response to give him a short period of imprisonment. In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed. There will be an order that a bench warrant issue for the arrest of Norman Nuggett Weazel.

-----

5   JUDGMENT