STATE OF TASMANIA v SHANE PETER ANDERSON 29 JULY 2021
and JOSHUA JOHN CHETTLE
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Mr Anderson and Mr Chettle, you have both pleaded guilty to 2 counts of assault. You committed these crimes on 20 January 2018. You then were aged 30 and 22 respectively, and were both without significant criminal history.
The crimes were committed during the course of what can only be described as a vigilante exercise, designed to scare the complainant, who you believed had, about a week earlier, committed an aggravated burglary of the house of a friend of Mr Anderson. The friend was an 87-year-old woman who lived alone and was in the house during the burglary. She was understandably very distressed by that event. Her distress was compounded by the fact that the perpetrator, after he had been arrested and bailed, had been found in her backyard, without suitable explanation. It is clear that you both decided to take the law into your own hands in a misguided attempt to scare him and by doing so to warn him off and protect her from further intrusion.
You hatched a plan after Chettle saw a communication on social media from this man seeking assistance with transport. In accordance with the plan, Chettle contacted him and offered him the requested assistance. During the course of the resultant journey, Chettle drove him to a pre-arranged rural location, where they were met by Anderson, who had been driven to the location by his partner. Anderson had with him a loaded shotgun and cable ties. He gave the cable ties to Chettle and instructed him to use them to tie the complainant’s ankles. The complainant resisted and Anderson attempted to strike him to the face with the firearm, but the complainant was able to push him away. The complainant then ran away. As he was doing so, Anderson fired the shotgun. It is accepted by the prosecution that he did not fire the gun at the complainant nor was the complainant struck by a projectile. The purpose of firing the shotgun was to increase the sense of threat experienced by the complainant.
The only physical injuries suffered by the complainant were some abrasions sustained as he ran through the bush while making his escape. I have received a victim impact statement from him which emphasises his fear and asserts ongoing psychological impact. I have no doubt that there has been some impact of this nature. It was clearly a frightening experience, which was, of course, precisely what you were both attempting to achieve.
Each of you has a good background. Mr Anderson, you are now 34 years of age. You are in a de facto relationship and have stepchildren and your own child from a previous relationship. You see all of these children regularly. You have a strong employment history and you are currently employed by a mining company. Your employer is aware of these charges. The company and your immediate supervisor have provided excellent references as to your character. You do have prior convictions in Tasmania, and some much older convictions in Queensland, but they all relate to relatively minor matters. Mr Chettle, you are now 25 years of age and your criminal history consists of only a few traffic infringements. You are single, do not have children and are in full-time employment as a client manager with a building company. I have received a number of references about you, including from your employer, and others who know you through your church and general friendship, all of which glowingly attest to your good character.
It is obvious to me that you are both extremely remorseful for your conduct, and, I imagine, desperately wish that you could wind the clock back. I accept that your pleas of guilty were relatively timely and consistent with your contrition. It took some time for the matter to resolve on the basis of the charges to which you have now pleaded guilty, and each of you indicated the plea as soon as it did. There was considerable delay in bringing this matter to the point of resolution, which was not your fault, and you have had to live with this hanging over your head during that time.
What you did was obviously misguided and, quite frankly, stupid. You may well have had the welfare of your elderly friend as your motive, but it is very clear that the law denounces and regards seriously the use of violence to exact retribution or, in this case, to warn off another person. You effectively took the law into your own hands and this aggravates, and certainly does not mitigate, the seriousness of your offending. Such conduct is completely inconsistent with a society which is governed by the rule of law. Further, the introduction and discharge of a loaded firearm during the course of these events was extremely dangerous, and deserves condemnation. It adds considerably to the objective seriousness of your conduct. There is absolutely no place in our community for the use of firearms in such a way. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt, but the potential impact, not only on the complainant but also the wider community, must be taken into account. I note that there were neighbours who were close enough to hear the discharge of the weapon, hear and see your vehicles driving away from the scene, and then provide refuge to the complainant. You obviously did not take into account, or worse disregarded, the potential consequences to or welfare of anyone in the surrounding vicinity, when you planned and carried out these crimes.
The objective seriousness of the crimes and the requirements of general deterrence and denunciation require the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. However, because of your otherwise good character and your pleas of guilty, I intend to offer you an opportunity to avoid actually serving the sentence. Neither of you should have any real difficulty in complying with the condition that you are not commit to an imprisonable offence during the period of suspension. However, I think that you should both also perform some community service in order to emphasise the punitive aspect of the sentence. Finally, I see no reason to distinguish between you in terms of culpability or sentence. It is the case that it was Anderson who introduced the firearm and Chettle did not know about it before he arrived at the scene. However, he was certainly part of the original plan, and when he realised that there was a firearm and cable ties involved, he did not desist nor object to their use. I think you should both receive the same sentence.
Accordingly, the orders I make are as follows:
1 You are each convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty and sentenced to a term of 8 months’ imprisonment. The whole of the sentence in each case will be suspended for a period of 24 months on the following conditions:
(a) That you are not to commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during that period.
(b) That you will perform community service for a period of 84 hours. The court notes that the sections referred to in s 24(5A) of the Sentencing Act apply to this condition. For the purpose of those provisions:
i you must report to a probation officer at the office of community corrections in Launceston within 3 clear days of today; and
ii the operational period of the order is 24 months.