STATE OF TASMANIA v JESSE JAMES AHERNE 9 AUGUST 2021
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Jesse James Aherne, has pleaded guilty to three counts of assault.
At around 7pm on 2 October 2020, he and a friend, Brodie Medley, took an Uber to the Caltex Service Station at Eastlands with the intention of purchasing some food and drinks. At that time, Ms Lesley Culley was working behind the counter, and she saw the defendant and Ms Medley walking around the store, and saw The defendant take a bottle of energy drink and some other items from the fridge and the shelves in the service station. One of the items was a bottle of turpentine.
The defendant and Ms Medley were standing by the entry/exit door of the service station, and Ms Culley called out to the defendant, because she thought he was about to leave the store. After calling out to him, the defendant smashed the bottle of energy drink on the ground, turned to Ms Medley and poured some of the bottle of turpentine over her.
Ms Medley screamed as that happened and he took hold of her by the hair and ran towards Ms Culley, who was still behind the counter, and yelled at her to give him a lighter or that he was going to throw the turpentine over her.
Ms Culley was terrified and she took her phone and ran inside the office and locked the door and rang the police.
While all that was happening, Mr Daniel Thorpe entered the store and observed what was occurring, and became caught up when the defendant dragged Ms Medley to the counter and demanded the lighter from Ms Culley, as had happened.
As a result of Ms Culley locking herself in the office, the defendant turned to Mr Thorpe then and asked him to give him a lighter. Mr Thorpe said he did not have one, and then the defendant threw turpentine over him. As soon as the liquid hit Mr Thorpe he thought the defendant was searching for a lighter to set fire to him. The turpentine went down his body, covering his face and blurring is vision.
The defendant reached into his pocket. Mr Thorpe ran to the back of the store and then to the exit door. Mr Thorpe looked back inside and could see the defendant by then had a lighter, he was holding Ms Medley by her head and ignited the lighter, holding it towards her head.
As the defendant held the lighter towards Ms Medley, another customer attempted to enter the store. The defendant told him that if he came in here, he would set Ms Medley alight. By this time, police arrived. The observed what was happening. The could smell the turpentine. They spoke to the defendant. While they were talking to him, the defendant turned the lighter on and off a number of times. He was arrested however without incident, and was taken to the Hobart Police Station.
He complained of chest pains and was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital. He became erratic and it was determined he was under the influence of illicit substances. He was taken back to the Hobart Remand Centre and held there until sober.
He later participated in a video-recorded interview. He told police that he had serious concerns regarding his mental health. He said he recalled being at a pub with Ms Medley before catching an Uber to KFC at Rosny and then on to the service station, but he told police he had no memory of what happened inside the service station, just that he “lost it” and that voices in his head were telling him to do “crazy stuff”. He further told police that he just wanted to be safe, and as soon as the police arrived he stopped because he thought he was safe then. He said he had not taken drugs for two or three days but had been using Ice heavily earlier in the week.
At the conclusion of the interview he was charged, processed and detained and he has been in custody since then, 2 October 2020.
I have read a victim impact statement from Mr Thorp. His greatest fear was one of being burnt alive. This has affected him very deeply and emotionally as a result.
The defendant has a criminal history which includes previous convictions of violence, but nothing can be said to be truly relevant to the present offences.
He has previously received fines, community service, probation, suspended terms of imprisonment, and has served terms of imprisonment as well.
Despite the length of his criminal history, however, there has been a gap of offending for a bit over three years from June 2017 until October 2020.
He was born on 20 June 1991, so he is currently 30 years of age. He was 29 years old at the time of the offending.
He is single without dependants and he has been in a relationship with the complainant in Count 3 “on and off for many years”.
He lost his father to cancer when he was approximately 12 years old. This had a severe impact on him and saw the commencement of his spiral into antisocial behaviour. His family unit was functional before his father’s death.
After the loss of his father, he began associating with older children who were already involved with the criminal justice system, and he started then to develop substance abuse habits.
As a result of his offending as a minor he spent significant periods at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre, and in and out of there until almost 18 and then, as it is put to me, “graduated” to the adult prison system.
Tragically, he was sexually assaulted and abused by staff at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre while he was detained there in his mid-teen years, and has recently received compensation in relation to those incidents.
Another further significant event in his life was the murder of his brother approximately three years ago.
He still has contact his mother other family members, who are in Court to support him today.
He commenced his alcohol, cannabis and petrol sniffing at the age of 12 and since 19, he has been a heavy user of methylamphetamine.
He had occasional contact with community drug and alcohol services in the past, and has had varying periods of abstinence during previous periods in custody. However, on return to the community he recommenced his substance abuse.
He has been found now to have a “much improved” mental state, and I will come to this in a moment. Nevertheless, it is put to me, he still has a long road ahead regarding his drug rehabilitation.
In about the 72 hour period prior to this offending, he was experiencing increasing persecutory ideation, and was of the belief his life was under threat, and that he was going to die at the hands of the “Chinese Mafia”.
He believed his partner was “in on it”. He heard voices insulting him and was unable to sleep properly for several nights prior to the offending. He tried to stay awake in case “he was required to defend himself”.
I have been provided with a forensic psychiatric report from Dr Michael Jordan which the defendant’s counsel, Mr Lammersdorf notes accurately demonstrates the following
- The defendant was psychotic at the time of the offences.
- His decision making was impaired and had been for a number of days, potentially over a longer period.
- The fact that use of substances can precipitate his symptoms may have been less evident to him at the time of the offending.
- There is no evidence of particular planning to that which the defendant carried out.
- The taking of low value goods and turpentine was a result of his response to his perception of paranoia.
- There was a route towards self-immolation as a response to his believing that his life was under serious threat and psychosis can explain why he might have been behaving in the fashion he was.
- His mental health, as I have already mentioned, is much improved compared to when he first entered custody.
- He requires ongoing monitoring of his illicit substance status because, in order to remain psychosis free, he needs to stay clear of amphetamine-based substances.
- He would benefit from local drug and alcohol services.
- Supervision within the local drug and alcohol services would also provide an opportunity to monitor his mental state, with possible referral to a community mental health team for further assessment in case of deterioration.
- Finally, the psychosis he was experiencing at the time of the offences significantly impaired his judgment and directly related to some of the bizarre and potentially dangerous actions he completed at the scene of his offending.
- Whilst Dr Jordan does not consider that general or specific deterrence should be moderated, Mr Aherne’s ongoing commitment to drug and alcohol rehabilitation, Dr Jordan says, is a marker of improved insight into his substance misuse and its effects upon him.
I take into account the matters put on behalf of the defendant by Mr Lammersdorf, although I do note that Dr Jordan, on two occasions, in his report noted that while the defendant now appreciates his situation, it is the case that the fact that the use of substances could cause psychosis only may have been less evident to him at the time of his offending. In other words, he may have known of the connection and have not down anything about it. He of course now must, if this is not to occur again.
Dr Jordan has also specifically noted that any potential reduction in the defendant’s moral culpability rests on the debate to what extent he was aware that his use of substances, taken under his own volition, was resulting in his paranoid state.
So, the defendant is aware of that connection now but it may not have been so evident to him in the days leading up to the alleged offending when his use was significant, and I give him the benefit of that doubt.
In all of the circumstances, particularly the defendant’s current awareness of the cause of his psychosis and his potential to build on his abstinence from the use of illicit drugs whilst in custody over the last 10 months, the defendant is convicted and I impose a single sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment backdated to 2 October 2020 and I suspend the balance from today on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.
In addition I make a community correction order for a period of 12 months with special conditions that he be under the supervision of a probation officer during the operational period of that order, and submit to such mental health and drug assessment and treatment as directed by a probation officer or medical practitioner. He should report to Highfield House by 4pm tomorrow.