//
[1996] QCA 211
General information, not legal advice.
Court of Appeal (Qld)
1996-06-04
Fitzgerald P, Demack J, Williams J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant has a criminal history, though it does not involve any offences of violence. In 1988 he was dealt with in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on a charge of imposition and, again in 1991, he was dealt with in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on one count of stealing cigarettes and one count of wilful and unlawful damage to property.
More significantly on 5 June 1992 he was dealt with in the Rockhampton District Court on one charge of receiving, four charges of stealing, two charges of false pretences and a charge of break and entering a dwelling house with intent. He was placed on probation for a period of three years. It will be seen that the offence the subject of this application occurred shortly before the expiration of that period of probation.
There was a report from a psychiatrist placed before the learned sentencing Judge and he did refer to that in the course of his sentencing remarks. The sentence imposed was 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after serving a period of six months.
A head sentence of 18 months is, in my view, well within the range for an offence of this type. This Court has, on many occasions, indicated that Courts must deal seriously with this type of offence, particularly where beer glasses are involved. There is need for general deterrence of that type of behaviour.
A recommendation for parole after serving six months, in my view, adequately reflects the circumstances peculiar to the applicant. He appeared to represent himself today and stressed the complainant's behaviour as provoking the incident, the fact that he had no previous convictions for offences involving assault, and cases which he said indicated the sentence was too high. Those matters were given due weight by the sentencing Judge.
The cases to which he referred can all be readily distinguished and some of them indicate that this is, indeed, an appropriate sentence. In all the circumstances I would refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
DEMACK J: I agree. I would only add that Mr Darwin sought to emphasise today that he is not a violent person, however the report of the psychiatrist before the sentencing Judge contained the opinion that Mr Darwin has an intermittent explosive disorder and that in this disorder there are episodes of failure to resist or control aggressive impulses and the degree of aggressiveness expressed during episodes is grossly out of proportion of any precipitating psychological stressors.
In those circumstances it is commendable that Mr Darwin has been seeking assistance from psychologists and psychiatrists during his time in prison, however it does not seem to me that there is any indication that the sentencing Judge failed to give proper effect to the psychiatric material before him. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
R
Darwin [1996] QCA 211