STATE OF TASMANIA v ROBERT EDWARD WILLIAMS 3 NOVEMBER 2009
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE EVANS J
The defendant is convicted on his plea of guilty to one charge of being an accessory after the fact to robbery and one charge of assault and, consistent with the verdict of the jury, he is convicted of one charge of aggravated robbery.
In the early hours of the morning of Friday 3 June 2005, Matthew Lamond, and a young woman, Annemeika Hyde, were parked in separate cars in a Devonport car park. They were talking to each other. Anthony Good and the defendant approached. Mr Good entered Ms Hyde's vehicle, grappled with her, grabbed her work bag which contained her wallet and phone, placed it in the back of Mr Lamond's vehicle, and himself sat in the back of that vehicle. Prior to robbing Ms Hyde, Mr Good had assaulted Mr Lamond, and in the course of that assault he had punched Mr Lamond in the nose, causing it to bleed and causing an undisplaced fracture.
After Mr Good sat in the rear of Mr Lamond's vehicle, the defendant pushed Mr Lamond from the driver's seat of that vehicle into its passenger seat, entered the vehicle and drove off. As he drove away at high speed, Mr Good continually threatened and physically harassed Mr Lamond. In the early stages of the trip, Mr Lamond estimates that they were travelling in excess of 100 kilometres per hour. Mr Good was holding Mr Lamond around the neck and pulling him against the seat and every now and then he hit him to the head, face and nose. The defendant had also slapped Mr Lamond on two occasions before the journey began. Mr Good demanded and received Mr Lamond's wallet from which he extracted a small amount of money and an ATM card.
Having driven to Ulverstone, the defendant parked the vehicle in the town centre. Mr Good took Mr Lamond from the vehicle to extract $100 from an ATM as the defendant waited with the vehicle. When they returned, Mr Good gave the defendant $50. There then followed some further driving and ultimately the defendant and Mr Good departed the vehicle, leaving it with Mr Lamond.
Neither of the offenders was known to Mr Lamond. Mr Good was identified by way of DNA found on a cigarette butt in the vehicle. Through him the police found their way to the defendant who admitted his involvement when interviewed on 8 December 2005. Having been charged, the defendant failed to appear on 6 February 2006. He was finally arrested on 15 February 2009.
Mr Lamond recovered in the ordinary course from the physical effects of his injuries. The psychological impact of the crimes on Ms Hyde and Mr Lamond were significant and, in the case of Ms Hyde, they have been long lasting.
The defendant is 26 years of age. His prior and subsequent convictions are almost all traffic related. He was 21 when these crimes were committed. Mr Good was unquestionably the instigator and principal perpetrator of this course of criminal conduct. The defendant has not been involved with Mr Good since the crimes occurred, and during the period of some 4½ years since their occurrence the defendant has not been convicted of any relevant offences. After completing grade 9 at school, the defendant obtained a traineeship in the fibreglass industry. He has regularly found employment in this area and other areas since leaving school. He has a good work record.
Against this background I will wholly suspend the sentence I am to impose on the defendant. He is sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. This sentence is suspended on condition that he is of good behaviour for 2½ years.
The levies fixed by the Victims of Crime Compensation Act for the defendant's offences are to be paid by him to the Director, Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service within 28 days.