STATE OF TASMANIA v MAX ALFRED PALMER 16 FEBRUARY 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Palmer you have pleaded guilty to one count of wounding and one count of stealing a trailer and boat to the value of $4200. I will deal with the summary matter pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code. The crime was committed some time after 11 am on 7 August 2021. The complainant is Harry Edmonds. The defendant and complainant are well known to each other being house mates and were work associates.
At approximately 8.45 am on 7 August, Mr Palmer was drinking alcohol in his motor vehicle. The complainant’s motor vehicle was parked adjacent to his. The complainant went to enter his motor vehicle and the defendant challenged him and accused him of making sexual advances towards his girlfriend. A verbal altercation ensued, which quickly escalated into a physical exchange. It seems the argument continued for quite some time, and a third party intervened in an attempt to placate the men. At one point during the altercation the defendant threw the complainant’s phone and keys away and kicked the driver’s side door of his vehicle. He also chased him and punched him. A little later in the morning the third party attempted to sit the defendant and complainant down and resolve the issues. The defendant “fired up” and said to the complainant “you’re a cunt, you cheated on my missus”. He then proceeded to punch the complainant in the face and to the back of the head until the third party pulled him off the complainant. For reasons that are not particularly clear to me, the defendant is not charged with any offences arising from this behaviour. It is an agreed position that I am to treat this evidence as context evidence, which explains the lead-up to the wounding incident.
Having been pulled from the complainant, and in an agitated state, the defendant picked up a glass bottle and hit the complainant over the head with it, causing a wound. He also threw a mug at the complainant which cut the complainant above his right eye. The use of the bottle and mug was deliberate, although the State do not assert there was an intention to wound. Clearly, however, it was very foreseeable that such an injury may be the outcome, and the defendant proceeded regardless. The wounding happened towards the end of what had been a relatively protracted period of angst on the defendant’s behalf. Others had intervened to try and calm him. The defendant had plenty of opportunity to re-think his anger and frustration and walk away.
The complaint was injured by the defendant’s attack and when he went to the bathroom to attend to his injuries, the defendant tried to corner him in there. The third party again separated the two. The defendant moved away and began to punch the wall before retreating to his room. The complainant phoned Tasmania Police. When they attended, he asked police to speak to the defendant but did not wish at that point to make a formal complaint. As police left, the complainant went outside and noticed his boat and trailer had been hooked up to the defendant’s vehicle. The complainant unhooked the trailer.
The complainant was subsequently taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital. He had a laceration to his right eyebrow which was 1.5 cm in length and a laceration to his head which was 2 cm in length. The wound to the eyebrow was treated with three sutures. The wound to the head was treated with three staples.
Later that afternoon the defendant was located driving in North Hobart. He had the complainant’s boat and trailer attached to his vehicle. The removal of the boat and trailer from the residence without the complainant’s consent amounts to the stealing offence. It seems it was an act done to further infuriate the complainant because of the defendant’s perception he had betrayed their friendship. The boat and trailer were returned to the complainant undamaged.
The defendant was interviewed by police on 8 August 2021. He told police he had confronted the complainant about him sleeping with his girlfriend. A fight had broken out between them when he asked the complainant for “the truth”. He said he had been punched and was trying to defend himself by fighting and pushing. He agreed there was a scuffle. He denied he had thrown anything at the complainant. He said that he had been drinking a glass of water in a cup and he did not know what happened to the cup. He said he recalled seeing the complainant’s injuries and he was upset by that. As to the boat and trailer he said he had taken it to go fishing and understood that he could use the boat for that purpose. In my view, the defendant was not particularly forthcoming with police during the interview.
I have photographs of the wound. The complainant obviously bled quite heavily at the time of the incident. I have no victim impact statement, although I have no doubt it would have been most upsetting for the complainant to see himself covered in blood and to have been attacked as he was. It seems the complainant’s wounds healed without difficulty.
The defendant was 30 years old when he committed the act. He is now 31. He has a prior matter for common assault from November 2018. It involved him punching a female (although the defendant believed the person to be male) to the jaw in a nightclub. The defendant was effected by alcohol when it happened. No conviction was recorded and he was placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond. In 2014, in Victoria, he was fined, but not convicted of the offence of behave in riotous manner in public place. I am told this related to a hotel melee. He has no other relevant criminal history. The defendant has had a problematic relationship with alcohol at times. These prior matters seem consistent with that. The defendant’s upbringing was marred by his father’s physical abuse, usually occurring in the context of his father’s alcoholism. He continues to have a strained relationship with his parent’s, particularly his father. The defendant was also subject to abuse in a child-care setting when he was younger. He says this has had a lasting impact upon him, and has contributed to his excessive use of alcohol and drugs at times. The defendant completed high school and went on to obtain trade qualifications in a number of fields. He has a strong industrial history. At the time of the offence, he was employed as a commercial diver, working with the complainant. As a consequence of the incident, he resigned, and is now employed as part of a demolition crew. He is considered a hard-working employee.
It seems the defendant reacted very badly to a situation of jealousy. He perceived, rightly or wrongly, that the complainant had made advances towards his partner, and in an intoxicated state, challenged the complainant about it. The altercation continued for some time though, and as I have noted, the defendant had opportunity to think about his behaviour. I suspect his alcohol consumption limited his capacity for sensible thinking, but of course that is no excuse. Loss of control, and use of violence when affected by alcohol is something the defendant has done before, as evidenced by his prior criminal history. To his credit, the defendant has recognised this as a problem, and since 19 August 2021, very shortly after the offence occurred, he began engaging in the Salvation Army Bridge Program as an outpatient. He continues to do so. He is described as engaging well with the program and showing commitment towards his recovery. He has also engaged in psychological counselling since the offence, and is learning strategies to help him manage his anger, anxiety and emotional dysregulation. Whilst specific deterrence remains a relevant sentencing consideration, the efforts the defendant has made of his own volition to address his alcohol use and mental health is relevant to the weight I need give it. I am told the defendant very much regrets his behaviour and is sorry for the harm he caused to the complainant. His early plea of guilty is consistent with that. His plea has mitigatory value, not only because of its utilitarian benefit but also because I accept it is reflective of genuine remorse.
I had the defendant assessed as to his suitability for home detention. I take into account the report generally. I note he is considered suitable for a home detention order. A community correction order is not recommended given the steps taken towards rehabilitation.
Resort to violence to settle grievances, real or perceived, is never acceptable. Such behaviour must be condemned by courts. Hitting someone over the head with a glass bottle and striking them in the face with a mug, is obviously a dangerous thing to do. Blows to the head and face area, can easily result in serious injury, sever major blood vessels or impact eyesight. The consequences can be debilitating, and sometimes life-threatening. It is fortunate that Mr Edmonds does not appear to have suffered any significant injury and his wounds have healed without long-term effect.
Wounding is a serious crime even when committed recklessly because of the risk of serious injury I have spoken of. There is a need to deter others from settling grievances with violence. I am satisfied I can meet all relevant sentencing objectives here, by the imposition of a home detention order. I note the defendant consents to such an order. If the defendant was not suitable for home detention, I would have sentenced him to a term of imprisonment, albeit that most, or all of it would have been suspended, given the steps he has taken towards rehabilitation, and his limited criminal history.
I make the following orders. The defendant is convicted of all matters to which he has pleaded guilty. In respect to the stealing charge, you are fined the sum of $750, such sum being payable within 28 days. In respect to the crime of wounding, I impose a home detention order for an operational period of nine months. The full details of the order will be set out in a document that will be provided to you. The order will include the following conditions which will apply for the whole of the operational period:
- You must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment.
- You must reside at [address specified].
- You must be there at all times except when you are not there for a “relevant reason” as specified in s 42AD(4) of the Sentencing Act That includes going somewhere with your probation officer’s permission.
- You must permit a police officer, probation officer or other prescribed officer to enter those premises.
- You must permit a police officer to conduct a search of the premises, conduct a frisk search of you, and take a sample of any substance found on the premises or on your person.
- You must submit to electronic monitoring, including the wearing or carrying of an electronic monitoring device.
- You must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring.
- You must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring.
- You must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring device, including directions relating to the installation, attachment or operation of the device or system used for the purpose of electronic monitoring, if those directions are given to you by a police officer, a probation officer, a prescribed officer or any other person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device or system used for the purpose of electronic monitoring.
- You must maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections, and be accessible for contact through that device at all times.
- You must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer.
- You must not take any illicit or prohibited substances.
- You must not take any medication containing an opiate, benzodiazepine, bupropion hydrochloride or pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical practitioner that you have been prescribed that medication.
- You must not consume alcohol and you must submit to testing for the presence of alcohol by a police officer or Community Corrections officer.
I further order that you must attend the Community Corrections office, Highfield House, by 10am tomorrow, 17 February, for the fitting of an electronic monitoring device and induction in respect to this order.