Reid v Queensland Police Service
[2012] QDC 182
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Reid v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 182
- Add to List
Reid v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 182
Reid v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 182
QDC [2012] 182
DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE HARRISON
Appeal No 196 of 2011
ALEXANDER RONALD REID | Appellant |
and |
|
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE | Defendant |
CAIRNS
DATE 08/03/2012
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by Alexander Reid in relation to conviction and sentence.
On the 18th of October 2011 he appeared in the Magistrates Court at Cairns on a number of charges stemming from incidents which occurred on the 14th day of June 2011, firstly at the offices of Channel 9 in Cairns and later at the office of the ABC in Cairns. I have read the transcript of the proceedings, and it seems that these incidents followed an occasion when an appeal by him to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. That related to an original charge of riding a pushbike without a helmet.
He went, firstly, to the offices of Channel 9 and was charged with one offence of going armed so as to cause fear, and one offence of common assault. He later went to the offices of the ABC where he was charged with a further offence of going armed so as to cause fear, and later again with a charge of obstructing police.
He pleaded not guilty to the two charges relative to his attendance at Channel 9, and these matters were heard on the 18th of October 2011, and the Magistrate who handled that found him guilty of those charges. She then dealt with pleas of guilty in respect of the two remaining charges.
On charge 1, being the charge of going armed at Channel 9, he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment; and to charge 2, also to 15 months' imprisonment. On charge 3, the one of going armed at the ABC, he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; and on the remaining count of obstructing police to three months' imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently; 113 days of presentence custody was declared, and his parole release date was fixed at the 27th of January 2012.
As I read his appeal, he was appealing against both the convictions and the sentences. I will deal firstly with the convictions, and he appears to be saying that the learned Magistrate failed to properly consider his disabilities, which he described as a medical diagnosis, which was beyond her qualifications and ability.
He argued that a witness appeared to have altered her evidence, and also argued that the Magistrate was biased towards him. On my reading of the transcript in this very short trial, it could not possibly be said that there was any evidence of bias on the part of the Magistrate.
He never, ever advanced his point in relation to any witness having changed evidence. I gave him the opportunity here this morning to present his case, but he was quite abusive and left, so he never took that any further, and there was nothing before me to suggest that there was any fault in that part.
In relation to his condition, he explained to me that he had a serious physical condition, and a serious psychological condition. I attempted to explain to him that, if that were the case, he should have obtained medical evidence to that effect and should have placed that medical evidence before the Magistrate when she was considering the matter.
He seemed to be arguing that Australia was a party to some treaty in relation to the disabled and therefore he did not have to do that. The short answer to that is it is impossible for the Magistrate to conclude that he did suffer from any serious physical and/or mental conditions unless she had evidence to that effect. And the only way that evidence could have been put before her was by way of reports or evidence and there was simply no attempt on his part to do that.
I accept that appeals such as this are appeals by way of rehearing, and it seems to me that the Magistrate, quite properly, acted on the evidence of those people who were present at Channel 9. I have read that evidence closely, and it is clear from what, firstly, Ms Hudson said, and secondly, what Mr Heise said, that he went in there armed with a Stanley knife, that he threatened Ms Hudson with the Stanley knife because he wanted her to report his views about this whole issue of riding a pushbike without a helmet.
When she failed to do so, he became more agitated, so much so that she ran away and locked herself in a room. Mr Heise then came out and gave evidence to the effect that he swung the knife in front of Mr Heise's face and told him he would slice his throat and watch him bleed. That was the evidence which constituted charge 2, the charge of common assault which is, indeed, a very serious example of that type of offending.
He gave evidence himself which I would describe as rather rambling evidence, and it seems to me that the Magistrate was quite entitled to make the findings that she did on credit, accepting Ms Hudson and Mr Heise as credible witnesses and rejecting his evidence in terms of what occurred at Channel 9, which I note in the material is referred to as WIN.
When he appeared before me today he took offence at some comments that the learned Magistrate made about him having a fairly clear memory of events that day, and about him appearing to be intelligent, yet on the one hand he appeared to be arguing with me that that was a correct statement of fact, while earlier he was arguing that it was a totally incorrect stated fact, which illustrates his sheer inconsistency in that regard. As I understand it, she merely made that point to illustrate the fact that if he did have some sort of condition, there being no evidence of such before her, that it did not appear to affect his recollection of events that day as purported to be given by him.
In the circumstances, on a rehearing of the matter, it seems to me that he was properly convicted in the first place and I dismiss the appeal against conviction for the first two charges.
It is then necessary to turn to the appeal against sentence, which I have interpreted to mean the appeal against all of the sentences that were imposed. Again, he relies here on a number of matters.
In one of his two notices of appeal - and it is not clear to me why we have two - he says, "I am seeking a reduction of sentence. The Magistrate failed to properly consider my disability, making a medical diagnosis which is beyond her qualifications and ability." And in the other one he said that, "She failed to properly consider the aggravating circumstances, i.e. an adequate sun visor is a design omission on a bicycle which results in serious" - I cannot make out the next word - "to the occurrence of four skin cancers on my face and ears."
Now, the Magistrate in that case was not considering anything to do with the use or otherwise of helmets, because that was dealt with in the earlier appeal which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Further on in the other notice he said, "The Magistrate should have made a community service order due to my disability and mental illness and skin cancers." Again, he made no effort to put any such information before her. Certainly, in certain circumstances, psychological conditions which contribute to offending can be relevant, but a Court can only make such a finding if there is evidence to that effect before the Court. There was none here.
Similarly, in relation to any physical or mental condition, it can also be relevant on sentence if it can be shown that a person with those conditions may experience more difficulty in prison than would otherwise be the case. Again, there was no such information placed before the Court here.
Before the Magistrate a copy of a decision in R v. Lidbetter [2009] QCA 6 was handed up by the prosecution. That suggested that in cases of going armed causing fear where the person had previous convictions, but not of a like nature, that an appropriate head sentence was probably in the region of 15 months.
I have already dealt with his offending at Channel 9 or WIN, but regard also should be had to his behaviour when he went to the offices of the ABC at Sheridan Street. He wanted the ABC to place over the radio his views about the wearing of helmets and the law in that regard, when a Mr Dinnen refused on the basis that the story was not of any interest, which is probably correct. He became agitated and irate and began swearing and screaming at Mr Dinnen, so much so that he asked him to leave the premises. He then produced the same Stanley knife that he had produced earlier at WIN, and said words to the effect, "You know what this is. You want some of this?" Again, very serious offending.
Here there were three particularly serious offences: the initial one involving Ms Hudson of going armed as to cause fear; the very serious example of assault on Mr Heise; and also the serious example of going armed so as to cause fear involving Mr Dinnen.
I have considered also his criminal history as tendered on the sentence. As the Magistrate pointed out, he had previous offences for obstructing police, assaulting police, committing public nuisance on the 19th of November 2007. He appeared again on the 13th of April 2010 on charges of assault or obstruct police officer. On this occasion there were five separate charges and one of committing public nuisance.
He was back again on the 19th of April 2011 on a further charge of assaulting or obstructing a police officer; and again two days later, although it seems both of those predated the earlier appearance.
So, whilst he has no previous for serious violence, he certainly has had very real problems in his dealings with authority. And it seems that his anger comes very much to the fore.
He told me during his brief appearance before the walk-out this morning that anger often got the better of him because of his condition. Again, all we have on that is what he says, and there was nothing whatsoever before the Magistrate to the effect that there was any psychological, or for that matter, physical condition which contributed to his behaviour.
It seems to me that the sentence in this case at the very least should have been 15 months' imprisonment, and I find it impossible to conclude that a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, which the Magistrate did impose, was manifestly excessive.
She applied a slightly higher sentence on the second occasion, namely one of 18 months, and it seems to me that that was a proper approach to the exercise of the discretion that she was faced with. So, in the circumstances, I also dismiss the appeal against sentence. Thank you, Mr De Bonis.