STATE OF TASMANIA v MATTHEW JOHN BUZZ ANDERSON-SAVAGE
20 OCTOBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Matthew Anderson-Savage, you have pleaded guilty to the crimes of aggravated burglary and three counts of criminal code assault. The charges arise out of the home invasion that you were involved in on 7 June 2025. Three other people were also involved in that incident, namely Stuart Ferguson, Tye Ferugson and Kaleb Ferguson. Stuart Ferguson and Tye Ferguson have already been sentenced. Kaleb Ferguson is awaiting sentence. I say now that in my view; parity has very little work to do in this sentencing exercise as it relates to the co-accused Stuart Ferguson and Tye Ferguson. The prior criminal history of each of those accused is vastly more significant than the prior convictions that you possess.
By way of background, Stuart Ferguson is the father of Tye Ferguson and Kaleb Ferguson. Matthew Anderson-Savage is a family friend. On the evening of 7 June 2025, the complainants, Natthan Hankin and Kobe Hankin, who are father and son, attended a 21st birthday party at [address redacted]. At the time, Kaleb Ferguson lived at the residence with his partner, Tayla Radford. The party was to celebrate Ms Radford’s 21st birthday. Tayla Radford is also Kobe Hankin’s cousin, thus Kobe was at the party. Kaleb Ferguson’s stepmother, Brook Sproule, is Stuart Ferguson’s partner and she too was at the party.
During the evening, Kaleb Ferguson was involved in an incident with Kobe Hankin’s aunt. This led to a physical altercation occurring between Kobe Hankin and Kaleb Ferguson which left Kaleb Ferguson with some injuries to his face. Ms Sproule saw the altercation between Kobe Hankin and Kaleb Ferguson. She apparently went to intervene but was prevented from doing so by a Larry Gunn. During this incident, Ms Sproule was assaulted, which resulted in her becoming quite distressed and experiencing breathing difficulties. As a result of these altercations, police were called to [address redacted].
Mr Stuart Ferguson, who was not at the party, received information about the altercations and attended at [address redacted] with Ty Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage. By the time that trio attended, the police were present. Police prevented Stuart Ferguson, Ty Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage from entering past the driveway of the property. The interaction between police and the three defendants was recorded on body worn camera. Stuart Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage were observed to be in an emotionally heightened state and were agitated. Stuart Ferguson repeatedly said, “where is he?” in reference to Kobe Hankin.
The three were sent from the [address redacted] property by police. Apparently not content with leaving matters for police to resolve, at approximately 8:15pm, Stuart Ferguson, Ty Ferguson, Kaleb Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage all drove in a motor vehicle to the complainants’ property at [address redacted]. The two complainants were, by that time, back at their home and were present there with Marita Hankin, Nathan Hankin’s wife, and Elyse Hankin, their 16-year-old daughter.
When the defendants arrived at the Hankin property, Stuart Ferguson was in possession of a handgun, which was secured in the back of his trouser waistband, and Ty Ferguson was armed with a spanner. All four defendants approached the door. Stuart Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage repeatedly kicked the front door, seeking to gain entry. Whilst this was occurring, they were yelling words to the effect of, “youse are done now, youse are gone”. At one point, Stuart Ferguson reached up and broke the external CCTV surveillance camera from its location above the front door and threw it to the ground.
Having heard the defendants arrive, Kobe Hankin retrieved a knife from a kitchen cupboard and then ensured his mother and sister had left the house. Meanwhile, one of the defendants smashed a glass window panel next to the front door, reached in and opened the door and entered the premises. Stuart Ferguson approached Nathan Hankin, screaming “where is he, where is he”. By this point, Nathan Hankin had armed himself with a piece of wood and he hit Stuart Ferguson in an endeavour to defend himself. Nathan Hankin and Kobe Hankin were yelling for the defendants to get out of their house.
Stuart Ferguson asked Ty Ferguson to pass him the spanner. Ty Ferguson did so. Stuart Ferguson walked towards Nathan Hankin, while holding the spanner, and swung it towards him. It did not connect with Nathan Hankin but hit the hallway wall, causing a hole. This constitutes the first count of assault. The defendants continued yelling, “where is he, I’ll smash his fucking head in”. One of the defendants threw an object, believed to be a porcelain owl ornament, at Nathan Hankin. It hit him on the lower lip, causing it to bleed. This constitutes the second count of assault.
The Hankins continued to ask the defendants to leave the property. Mr Nathan Hankin used a piece of wood in an attempt to strike the defendants and encourage their departure from the property. Kobe Hankin approached the group whilst holding the knife and screamed at them to get out. One of the accused threw an object, believed to be a torch, at Kobe Hankin which struck him to the left side of the head, resulting in a laceration. This constitutes the third count of assault. Both Kobe Hankin and Nathan Hankin were persistent in screaming at the defendants to get out.
Eventually, the defendants did back out of the residence, and the Hankins were able to close the front door. Once outside the residence, Stuart Ferguson took the handgun from the rear of his trouser waistband and pointed it directly at the front door, whilst saying, “I’m talking to you, I’m going to shoot you, get the fuck out here”. The other defendants picked up plants and garden ornaments and threw them at the front of the residence. All four defendants then left the residence in their vehicle.
The incident was captured on CCTV footage. I have watched it. It is obvious that the Hankins were desperate to have the defendants leave the property. They repeatedly requested that they do so. The defendants were aggressive, violent and seemingly determined to inflict harm. I suspect it was only because the Hankins had armed themselves with weapons to protect themselves, that the defendants did not inflict further violence upon them.
After the incident, Kobe Hankin was taken by ambulance to the Royal Hobart Hospital. The laceration to the side of his head was sutured. It was three centimetres in length.
On Monday, 9 June, Kaleb Ferguson sent a Facebook message to Nathan Hankin, which was threatening and suggested further violence was to be offered to them. The content of the message is inconsistent with any claim of remorse, although it is not clear on the facts, whether the sending of that message was known by Mr Anderson-Savage. During the incident, the defendants caused approximately $2,300 damage to the Hankins’ house and chattels.
These crimes have had a terrible impact upon the Hankin family. After the incident, they were so scared that they were forced to move residence. I have received a victim impact statement from the family. Their sense of safety and security has been impacted. Each member of the family has experienced significant psychological harm. They suffer with flashbacks, anxiety, disturbed sleep, panic attacks and hyper vigilance. Instead of feeling safe and secure in their home, they are constantly on edge and feel apprehensive and vulnerable. Members of the family have had to seek professional assistance to deal with the psychological harm occasioned by the crimes. Such consequences are, in my view, entirely consistent with what one would expect from criminal conduct of this nature. Home invasions, for the purpose of perpetrating violence, are to be regarded as extremely serious. As has been evidenced here, such criminal conduct almost inevitably causes psychological harm and undermines the feeling of security that individuals are entitled to enjoy within their own homes.
Matthew Anderson-Savage, you are 19 years of age. You were 18 when the crimes occurred. You are to be treated as a youthful offender. You have no relevant prior convictions, although you did receive a formal caution from police for an incident which occurred in June 2024 involving stealing with force. You had a relatively disruptive childhood, spending time between your parents and your grandmother. Both of your parents had issues with alcohol and illicit substance use and spent time in and out of custody. In more recent years, your relationship with your parents has improved markedly and they now support you and are encouraging you to lead a more pro-social life. You finished school part way through year 11 to begin working as a bricklayer with a family friend, but that employment has since fallen through. You are hopeful of obtaining work with your partner’s grandfather in construction once these court proceedings have been finalised. You are in a stable relationship. You and your partner have been together for about four years and recently had your first child. You and your partner have not been able to live together because of bail conditions, but you are proactive in parenting your child and it is your intention to live with your partner and baby as soon as these court matters are finalised.
I am told you have previously had trouble with excessive consumption of alcohol. That was a factor when you became involved in this matter. You were very drunk and therefore susceptible to agreeing to join in on what was obviously a very foolish plan.
Since the night of this incident however, you have worked hard at addressing your alcohol consumption and your ultimate aim is to cease its use entirely. In order to assist you, you have become heavily involved in boxing. You are involved with the Tasmanian Boxing League as an amateur boxer and ultimately, you hope to become a professional. You are committed to your training. Your coach has become a very positive influence in your life. I have received a reference from him. He notes that you have demonstrated a strong level of discipline and commitment to your boxing and approach your training seriously. He also notes that he has observed you to make a number of more positive choices around your lifestyle and notes your determination to achieve your goal of becoming a professional boxer. It does seem your involvement in this matter was out of character and it has been something of a turning point for you.
I had you assessed as to your suitability for home detention. You were assessed as suitable. In my view, the report is quite positive. It indicates that you have reflected upon your behaviour and recognise that your level of intoxication contributed to your poor decision-making and that is an issue to be addressed. It also indicates that you recognise how your behaviour is likely to have affected the 16-year old girl who was present at the home when the incident occurred, and you are sorry as to the impact your actions had upon her.
I take into account your plea of guilty, although note it was entered at a late stage. It does, however, show an acceptance of responsibility and some level of insight into your wrongdoing. That said, in my assessment this is a very serious example of crimes of this nature. It involved the invasion of a home late at night. It was a group attack involving weapons. The purpose of attending there was to exact retribution for the incident that had occurred earlier, and it therefore involved an element of vigilantism. I acknowledge the assaults inflicted did not result in any serious injury but that is only because of the resistance offered by the Hankins in defending themselves. It is obvious from the demeanour displayed by each of you forcing entry and refusing to leave, that violence was intended. Such behaviour must be strongly condemned and punished and others who may be minded to behave in similarly lawless ways, must understand that serious consequences will flow from such conduct.
In your case, I accept that your involvement in this matter was very much encouraged by the older participants, Stuart and Tye Ferguson. You displayed poor judgment by agreeing to join in on the attack, but your judgment was informed by your immaturity and your level of intoxication. I think there are a number of positive factors in your life. Your involvement in boxing and your commitment to your partner and young child are factors which will assist in your rehabilitation and guard against repeat of this type of conduct. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied, particularly given your young age and lack of relevant prior criminal history, that I should prioritise your rehabilitation. I am satisfied that I can appropriately deal with this matter by the imposition of a period of home detention. There will also be a requirement to undertake some community service work.
Matthew Anderson-Savage, you are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty. I impose one sentence. I make a home detention order for an operational period of 12 months commencing today. That order will include the following conditions:
- You must not commit an offence that is punishable by imprisonment.
- You must reside at the home detention premises of (address redacted) and be present at those premises unless your absence is approved by a probation officer.
There are also special conditions which will attach to the Home Detention Order. These will be provided to you in writing. They are as follows:
- You must permit a probation officer, a police officer, or other prescribed officer to enter the home detention 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 that may be 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 that 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 that 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.
- You must maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact via that device at all times.
- You must not take any illicit or prohibited substances.
- You must not take any prescribed medication unless you provide written evidence from your medical practitioner that you have been prescribed that medication.
- You must not during the operational period of the order consume alcohol and you must, if directed to do so by a probation officer, police officer, or community corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test or other test for the presence of alcohol.
- You must submit to the supervision of a community corrections officer as and when required by that officer.
- You must, during the operational period of the order, continue with your medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment, as directed by your probation officer and comply with all reasonable directions given to you by a medical practitioner or mental health professional.
There will also be an order that you perform 84 hours of Community Service.
I order that you must report to Community Corrections, Hobart, by no later than 10:00am tomorrow for induction into this order.