STATE OF TASMANIA v TYE JOHN BAKER ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 15 MAY 2020
The defendant, Tye John Baker, has pleaded guilty to one count of assault contrary to s 184 of the Criminal Code.
On 11 April 2019, the complainant, Mr Sangit Shreshtha filled his motor bike with petrol at the Caltex Service Station at William Street at Devonport. He then parked in the car wash bay and commenced washing his motor bike.
The defendant approached him from behind, and without warning punched him, tackled him and took him to the ground, punched him in the face several times, and kneed him and punched him to the ribs repeatedly. The defendant swore at him, and then returned to his vehicle and left.
Closed Circuit Television footage depicts the defendant entering the service station, as well as the assault on the victim. I have viewed that footage.
The complainant was helped by a staff member and an ambulance was called. He was transported to the Mersey General Hospital by ambulance.
The next day he was transported to the Royal Hobart Hospital for surgery, as he had two fractures to his mandible. The broken jaw required plates and screws to be inserted, under surgery. He required stitches to his upper lip. He was discharged on 14 April 2019.
On 12 April 2019, the defendant was arrested and taken to the Devonport Police Station. He participated in a video interview and as the interview continued, and after being advised of the victim’s name, and being informed that there was CCTV footage, the defendant became emotional and admitted that he perpetrated the assault.
He immediately said that he was remorseful and regretted what he had done. He said it was a case of mistaken identity. That, in fact, it was a “revenge attack; on a person he thought was a man named ‘Enricho’ who had led an attack on him 3 years ago, when he had been set upon by 7 or 8 people in a serious assault.
At the conclusion of the interview the defendant was charged and he was remanded in custody until 9 May 2019, when he was admitted to bail.
On 20 November 2019, the defendant entered a plea of guilty on complaint 51479/19 in the Devonport Court of Petty Sessions.
Thereafter, he did not appear in court, and he was arrested and remanded on the 27 February 2020, and has been in custody since that time.
As at 15 May 2020, I am informed that the defendant has spent 105 days in custody attributable to this matter.
I have seen photographs of the victim and I have read a victim impact statement.
For the first 6 weeks after the assault the complainant was only able to eat pureed foods. For the following 2-3 weeks he could only eat soft food. Even after that, it still took a long time for him to be able to eat properly. He has also been left with a small scar on his temple.
The worst thing, he said, was that when he came home from hospital, he thought he would be okay, but he is no longer confident and feels scared, and is afraid to go out, even more so in unfamiliar places. He now fears being injured again. He wants to leave Tasmania as soon as possible.
The defendant has three prior convictions for common assault in 2009, 2010 and 2013 at which time a suspended sentence was imposed which was subsequently re-suspended in 2015. He also has prior convictions for a number of family violence offences.
The defendant is 30 years old and prior to remand, he resided with his de facto partner and her child in the Burnie area.
His childhood was not without significant difficulty. He suffered violence at the hands of his father, including punches to the mouth at age 13 which required hospitalisation.
He first commenced using illicit substances at age 14, including marijuana, MDMA and amphetamines. In his early 20’s his drug use extended to include crystal methylamphetamine.
Prior to his remand in custody, the defendant had commenced steps to address his offending, including engaging with Youth Family and Community Connections, which is a non-profit provider of intervention and counselling services.
He is extremely apologetic. His early plea of guilty is to his credit and he is entitled to a discount for that on an otherwise appropriate sentence. There is utility in the plea and it has shielded the complainant from the trauma of giving evidence.
As acknowledged by his counsel, Mr Petersen, far from being exculpatory, the vigilante style attack carried out in circumstances of mistaken identity only compounds the seriousness of the crime, given that it was perpetrated on a wholly innocent bystander.
Moreover, the injuries sustained by the complainant were serious and disabling for a substantial period of time, and he still suffers psychological symptoms. A sentence of imprisonment is warranted, but in view of the defendant’s desire and the steps he has taken, to address his offending I will allow the least possible non-parole period.
The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, backdated to 1 February 2020. He is not to be eligible for parole until he has served 6 months of that sentence.