STATE OF TASMANIA v JOSHUA DILLON ASTELL 16 DECEMBER 2021
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE MARSHALL AJ
Joshua Dillon Astell, together with the co-accused, Adrian Michael Flounders, was found guilty by a jury of the offence of aggravated robbery, and I formally convict Mr Astell of that offence. Mr Flounders will be dealt with tomorrow but, for the purposes of his comments on passing sentence, expecting that I would deal with him first, I have prepared some relevant facts in relation to the matter which I will now incorporate in this matter.
From the evidence given in the joint trial, and the verdicts of the jury, the following facts appear.
Mr Flounders befriended the complainant. When having a chat and a smoke with him in the smoking area of the gaming room of a hotel in Bellerive, when the complainant won $600 in cash on the poker machines, he had a conversation with Mr Flounders which included sourcing some drugs. Mr Flounders telephoned Mr Astell who agreed to come to the hotel to sell drugs to the complainant. However, Mr Astell did not bring drugs with him. His sole intention was to rob the complainant and run off. Mr Flounders and the complainant left the hotel to wait for Mr Astell in an area out of sight of patrons entering and leaving the hotel. Mr Astell suggested a price for the drugs sought by the complainant. The price was deliberately exorbitant. The complainant reacted angrily. Mr Astell then punched the complainant several times to the head, knocking him to the ground. He then started to kick the complainant. From blood dropping found on the shoe of Mr Flounders, Mr Flounders joined briefly in that activity. He also helped Mr Astell raid the complainant’s pockets. When he was on the ground Mr Astell robbed the complainant of his mobile, which included a case with $200 cash inside it. Mr Flounders took the complainant’s cigarettes and cigarette lighter. The complainant then fled. Mr Astell then picked up the complainant’s sunglasses from the ground and fled the scene. Mr Flounders followed.
Mr Astell has an extensive criminal history for a relatively young man who last month turned 23 years of age, being 21 at the time of the offending. He has several prior convictions over the last five years, including common assault and aggravated burglary. Mr Astell never knew his father and was raised by his maternal grandmother. Domestic violence was a feature of his upbringing. He was placed in foster care at 12 years of age, but ran away and returned to his grandmother. He moved to Anglicare Youth Care at 13 years of age. He was later expelled due to heavy cannabis use and hatred of adults. He has resumed contact with his mother who lives in the north of the State, and is close to his oldest brother. Mr Astell is one of five maternal half-siblings born to his mother. Mr Astell has a 14 month old son from a previous relationship, and has recently met him, and he has a good friendship with the child’s mother.
Prior to being remanded in custody, he was homeless and living on a transient basis with friends and associates, a large number of whom are criminal associates who he realises he will have to disassociate from once out of prison. He has been assessed as unsuitable for home detention. He did not complete year 8 but has completed part of an automotive course, and is keen to do a construction course, as well as a parenting course.
Although never being gainfully employed before, Mr Astell hopes to find employment post-release in construction via the partner of one of his cousins, and understands that success of any such employment will depend on him abstaining from illicit substances. When in receipt of Jobkeeper, Mr Astell spent most of his money on illicit drugs and owes about $2,500 in unpaid fines. He was diagnosed with ADHD as a teenager. He suffers from anxiety, especially when in the community. He is receptive to a mental health plan on release. He rarely partakes of alcoholic beverages. He has used Ice frequently leading up to daily when he was 19, but since then has only used amphetamines off and on. The stressors of release from custody may result in pressure for amphetamine use after release which has to be really watched.
Mr Astell acknowledged his offending in this matter. He accepts that he was the principal offender. He blames his lack of anger management and the use of amphetamines as catalysts for the current offending. He committed the offence for which the jury found in guilty when on a community supervision order. This resulted in him then being incarcerated. While in prison, on 5 March 2021, Mr Astell assaulted a fellow prisoner by punching him several times to the head and body. He has pleaded guilty to that assault. I formally convict him of that offence as well.
On that occasion Mr Astell intervened in an altercation between other persons on a basketball court. The complainant at one stage tried to stop him from intervening, but was rained upon with blows by Mr Astell. Mr Astell punched him several times to the body and head, and kicked him in the stomach, followed by punching him twice more to the head. I saw vision of the assault. It was quite vicious. The complainant’s jaw was broken but it was not clear whether that was done by Mr Astell or another person. The jaw required emergency surgery, and the complainant’s lower teeth were significantly displaced. Mr Astell said he was drunk on home brew at the time. His movements did not look like someone who was affected badly by alcohol. He agreed that his punches were full force. However a breath analysis recorded him at 0.9. As a result of this incident Mr Astell was locked down for three months.
In the circumstances, the only appropriate penalties for the aggravated robbery and the assault offences are periods of imprisonment. Mr Astell has been in prison effectively from 4 September 2020 in respect to the aggravated robbery charge. On that charge I sentence him to time served, which is roughly the equivalent to 15 months. On the assault charge, I sentence Mr Astell to a period of six months’ imprisonment, to commence immediately. Had Mr Astell not been co-operative with the police on this matter, the penalty would have been more severe. Had Mr Astell not been subject immediately to five days’ isolation, and shortly thereafter, three months’ lockdown, again the penalty would have been more severe.
I make a compensation order in favour of [the complainant] in a sum to be assessed.