The Queen v Quail [2013] VSC 190

3 He retreated back behind his car not far away from the gate into Hudson Pacific. It appears that he collapsed or fell to the ground in a sitting position and you came over to him. I am satisfied that you were going to shoot him again. Mr Ridis put up a struggle and the weapon discharged a bullet which probably went to the ground and part of it ricocheted into you lower leg. At some point Mr Ridis heard a click when what he now believes to be the gun was near his head. He had, and he has no recollection of this, bit your finger and you either dropped the weapon or he grabbed hold of it. You finished up on the ground next to Mr Ridis, and he finished up with the gun and struck you about the head with it. He knew that he had something heavy in his hand and thought it might have been a rock. He, at that stage, was seriously injured. He stood up and staggered away heading down Tarmac Drive. You got up and went to your car. You got into your car and started it. Mr Ridis saw you and he moved across Tarmac Drive. You drove towards him and either struck him a glancing blow or just missed him. You then drove around the court at the top of Tarmac Drive and turned in the direction of where Mr Ridis had fallen. You drove in such a way that you appeared to eyewitnesses to be driving at Mr Ridis. Two independent witnesses who had been working at Panalpina, a transport business in Tarmac Drive, believed that they saw you strike Mr Ridis with the car on the first occasion and drive over him on the second occasion. On the second occasion, you had driven your car so far over to the edge of the court that you had to drive between two trees near the Panalpina car park. Because of the injuries sustained by Mr Ridis, I regard it as being entirely unlikely, if not impossible, for any significant part of your car to have come in contact with Mr Ridis while he was on the ground. I do regard it as possible that, because Mr Ridis had fallen into a drain, your car may have passed over his body without making appreciable contact with it.

4 The registration number of the car had been observed by the witnesses at Tarmac Drive. That could not be traced to you, as I will explain in a moment. In any event, it did not much matter, because Mr Ridis had survived and identified you.

5 After you left Tarmac Drive, you did not seek medical attention until about 10.11pm, which was not quite two hours after you had left the court. What you did during that time has never been explained. You had been injured when Mr Ridis bit your finger and struck you on the head with the gun. You did certainly need medical treatment.

6 The circumstances of your purchase of the car had been such that, a few weeks before the events at Tarmac Drive, you had purchased the motor vehicle in response to it being advertised for $1300 cash. You had provided a false identity, calling yourself "Peter". You had avoided the production of your driver's licence and there was, therefore, no connection between you and the car. I am satisfied that that was done deliberately as part of the preplanning by you to commit this offence. Had Mr Ridis not survived, and had the car been left by you at the long-term car park abandoned, your identity might never have been established. The car, in any event, was only recovered from the long-term car park because the owners of it saw the need to resurface the car park. If it had been otherwise, it might still be there.

7 The version of events advanced by you and put to both Mr Ridis and your former wife, Renee, was that you arranged a meeting with Mr Ridis at his workplace after the two of you had a verbal altercation on the phone in which Mr Ridis had said offensive and potentially threatening words about your grandchild or grandchildren.

8 You have said that you went to Tarmac Drive pursuant to that arrangement for a meeting, that you accepted that you remained there for some time waiting for Mr Ridis to come out, and when he did come out, you drove over to where he was just to speak to him. You have said that he produced the gun and threatened you with it. You got out of the car, the two of you fought, and in the fight Mr Ridis was shot. You have advanced no real explanation for the driving at Mr Ridis, but you have denied you tried to hit him with the car.

9 You accepted that the pistol had been purchased through a friend of yours called Thomas Cobobe, who lived in California. You accepted that it had been purchased when you were in the United States, but denied that you had brought it back to Australia. Your former wife said that you had arranged for it to be sent to Australia and, indeed, you received it. You said it was she who had arranged it and later gave it to you.

10 In any event, there was a time from after 1992, you accepted, that it was in your possession, but you said you had left it behind when your marriage broke up. Your wife gave evidence as to your procuring of the gun and your possession of it.

11 Your counsel put to your former wife, Renee, and to Mr Ridis that the two of them had conspired effectively to murder you and that she, Renee, had given Mr Ridis the gun to effect that purpose and he, knowing that there was to have been a meeting that had been arranged, was determined to shoot you.

12 At the end of the day, the jury have rejected your version of events beyond reasonable doubt and, on the whole of the evidence in this case, that is hardly surprising. You are not to be punished for conducting your trial or from the way in which it was conducted, but these matters do not indicate that your future prospects of rehabilitation are particularly good and they certainly militate against any true remorse relating to what you have done.

13 I, for my part, am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence that in relation to the driving of the motor car, that it was still your intent to try and kill Stavros Ridis, but in any event the crime had been effectively completed at the time that you had first shot him, the question of the driving as an indication of your determination to finally carry out your purpose.

14 The background of your offending is that in 2009 you commenced an extra-marital relationship with Fay Ridis, the then wife of Stavros Ridis, which lead to Mr Ridis leaving the matrimonial home in 2009. Stavros and Fay Ridis had a son Michael and Fay Ridis had a son Jordan from a previous marriage.

15 You moved into the former matrimonial home in Mickleham at about Christmas 2009. In the 18 months that followed, there were numerous Family Court disputes about property and custody. Mr Ridis was granted the custody of Michael. That matter continued to be contested. There is no doubt that both you and Fay Ridis believed that there were a number of incidents at the Mickelham property involving damage and other nuisances for which you both blamed Stavros Ridis. Mr Ridis has denied those claims, but I do not doubt the strength of your belief about those matters. As a matter of completeness, there were also some claims of hostile behaviour to you from Mr Ridis on other occasions.

16 As I have already said, in a detailed cross-examination of the matters, they were not accepted by Mr Ridis. A number of reports were made to the police and the matters were raised and litigated in the Family Court. Another suggestion had been made that your former wife Renee had been spying on you at the premises, which she denies, although she agreed that there was an occasion in which she had been nearby.

17 There were two specific matters relating to the plethora of Family Court proceedings which were of significance in the trial. Mr Ridis and his daughter both gave evidence that at the Family Court on 15 March 2011 you had said to Mr Ridis, "You're dead and buried you cunt" or words to that effect. The other incident is that in about May or June 2011, Mr Ridis, through his solicitor, had applied to have your finances brought into the Family Court dispute.

18 On the available evidence, it seems to me that you had been financially devastated as a result of the collapse of your marriage and the circumstances leading up to that collapse. You had done your best to re-establish your business, and that application must have represented a threat to you. Whether it was the final trigger which caused you to act as you did, I do not know, but it certainly was a feature of the case proximate to the offending.

19 As a result of this altercation, Mr Ridis suffered a perforated bowel and kidney, and has a bullet permanently lodged in his spine. He suffered injuries to his ribs, ligament and cartilage damage to his right knee and a cut to his hand which required eight stitches.

20 I observed him at length on two different occasions and I accept that he is severely affected by these events both physically and psychologically. Michael Ridis, who was ten at the time of these events, continues to suffer from a post traumatic stress disorder.

21 At the time of the plea, I received a Victim Impact Statement from Mr Ridis supported by medical reports, and he also provided a psychological report relating to Michael Ridis. Mr Ridis confirmed in that statement that he still suffers from his injuries and has been on light duties in such work as he can perform since the incident, and has incurred a significant loss of income as a result of this. He is receiving counselling from a psychologist on a regular basis. The event has been life changing for him, for Michael and for Jordan, who has been living with Mr Ridis in recent years.

22 On the plea, it was put on your behalf that you had previously been of good character and active in the community through the Seventh Day Adventist Church for many years, at least up until you separated from your former wife Renee. You had been a successful builder and had operated a successful doll making business with your then wife for a number of years. You suffered financial collapse at about the time your marriage came to an end, but you had re-established your business before these events.

23 I received a number of references on the plea. You are regarded by those who have known you well as a non-violent person, and there is nothing in your background to suggest otherwise. You have done community work and been a useful citizen. You have been a good father and grandfather.

24 You have spent your time in custody usefully, and seven certificates relating to courses you have completed were tendered on the plea.

25 I received some medical material which indicated that at two different periods in your life, including at the time of this offending , you were suffering from depression. You are still taking medication for it. The material was brief, and apart from diagnosis and medication it revealed little else about it.

26 It was argued on your behalf that, given that diagnosis of depression taken into account and taking into account the turbulence and difficult Family Court proceedings over the period and your background involving the original collapse of your marriage, I should regard you in the whole of those circumstances as being less morally culpable. Although it is appropriate for me to have some regard at least to your depression, I do not accept that your moral culpability can be reduced in the way described.

27 Your position is still that you did attempt to murder Stavros Ridis.

28 A report from Dr Michael King, a forensic psychologist, was tendered on the plea. That report was set out in a way so that the second half of page two is blank. I have been assured by counsel that I have been provided with a copy of a report in the form in which he received it from his instructing solicitor, and I am happy to take his word for that. I do not, however, believe that the report in its present form is as it was provided by Dr King, and it leaves many unanswered questions.

29 There are a number of references in the report to which I will refer. The report begins in the second line, "There was an overwhelming thread of remorse and regret in the tone of his comments and responses."

30 Later in the report under the heading "From Interview":

Mr Quail related a life history which was in line with the measured evaluations: that is, on the one hand a story of "success" in a business and financial sense, and on the other hand, a pattern of options which avoid confrontation even at significant cost. Confirming the abovementioned intention: he asserts that he plans to go interstate when he is free to do so, in order to avoid any further confrontations with the person whom he regards as aggressive and dominant (the other party in the present matter).

The history of avoiding confrontation is evident in his earlier history, where his "ex-wife" and "steve" colluded "to hound me into the ground". Upon questioning this florid description translated into him being faced with a large missing sum of money from his financial matters, around 2009.

31 I interpolate: that description of events cannot be a reference to events in 2009, and as I understand the material and what was put during the trial that your former wife had taken funds from you, there was no suggestion at the time that there was any possibility of Mr Ridis having anything to do with it.

He was continuing to avoid confrontation, was facing up to the loss of around $1 million and aiming to re-build a business basis for his financial future with his present partner when, from a range of different perspectives which all link back to the "other party", involved about 20 reports to the police of the various forms of harassment which were occurring, and then ultimately, Mr Quail explained "the bubble burst." This phrase refers to the situation of an actual altercation and the outcome that both men were shot.

In hindsight, he says he would now take his intended action (apply for intervention orders against his adversary) and simply leave the state. "There is nothing worth fighting over," he says.

It would appear (from self-report and from external confirmation) that various financial and other factors led to a level of unprecedented frustration and a man who has always avoided confrontation has come face to face with a person who's been and is physically and socially dominant.

34 Later still, under the heading "Treatment and Prognosis":

Mr Quail is in some need of clinical assistance to help him overcome the remorse and guilt that he genuinely feels from the events which have occurred.

35 Some reliance during the plea was placed on the proposition that the bubble had burst. It is placed on it, though, in the context that that is supposedly to be a matter about which I can make an objective assessment, reviewing the facts that are necessarily behind the jury verdict, whilst the case proceeds on the basis that you still deny your involvement in it. I do not understand how the expression, "the bubble burst", in the report that has been provided, can mean anything other than you were directly involved in the incident in the way that the Crown case is put.

36 In relation to Dr King's report, he makes no formal diagnosis of any serious disorder. He would describe you as being submissive and, for what it is worth, he makes no reference to any depressive illness.

37 What is clear enough and what is clear about you is this: on the whole of the evidence, the extreme violence shown in this offending is out of character for you. It is not what your previous life has shown. I have great difficulty in getting anything useful out of Dr King's report, because apart from anything else, when the paragraphs that I have read out are taken together with your continued denial, through your counsel, of any criminal involvement in these matters, the report is itself internally contradictory; it just does not make sense because, as Mr Desmond accepted in his submissions, there is no basis for me to make a finding that you are remorseful, as that word is understood in the law. That is, that you regret having done what you have done, and regret having caused injuries to your victim. That is as we understand remorse. No remorse in this case, it seems to me. I place, at the end of the day, almost no weight upon the report from Dr King.

38 But if it is being put to me that the most important feature about it, and what is to be derived from your submissive personality, is that these events are out of character, as I have already said, I am perfectly happy to accept that.

39 The offending is serious. It is not mitigatory to say that the offending arose out of a difficult and tempestuous set of Family Court proceedings.

40 Because of the more recent matters I have canvassed, indicated by your lack of remorse, I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as being only limited.

41 I must have regard to the principles of just punishment and general and specific deterrence. General deterrence in cases of this kind is very important, and in your case, again because of the matters set out above, specific deterrence cannot be ignored.

42 This was a very serious example of the offence of its kind. It carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years. It was premeditated and carefully planned. It involved the use of a firearm fitted with a silencer. It was in, at the very least, a semi-public place.

43 Consistent with my findings in these reasons, you were still determined to kill Mr Ridis after the attempt to shoot him to death had failed.

44 John Quail, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 and a half years and I fix a non-parole period of ten years before you are eligible for parole.

45 I regard a potential parole period of two and a half years as being appropriate in the circumstances.

46 I declare that 629 days have been served by way of pre-sentence detention, and I direct that that declaration be included in the records of the Court.