STATE OF TASMANIA v RAYMOND ANTHONY BALDWIN 1 AUGUST 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Raymond Anthony Baldwin has pleaded guilty to the crime of assault contrary to the Criminal Code, dangerous driving contrary to s 172A of the Criminal Code, and a summary offence of driver involved in crash and failing to stop.
On 6 November 2022, the defendant drove into a carpark at a shopping centre on Green Point Road in Bridgewater and collided with a boy on a bicycle. The State maintained his act of driving at the complainant was deliberate and in anger, and that he was guilty of assault on the basis of an intentional application of force. One of the particulars of the dangerous driving is that he deliberately drove his vehicle at the cyclist. While the defendant admitted striking the boy, he maintained his conduct was reckless, not deliberate and that he was distracted and looking at his phone at the time he drove towards the boy and struck him. That position was disputed by the State and after a disputed facts hearing, I found beyond reasonable doubt that his act of driving at the cyclist was intentional, and the contested particular of dangerous driving was proved. Detailed reasons for my findings and conclusions were given on 23 April 2024.
Having regard to both the uncontentious facts and the facts I have found proved beyond reasonable doubt, I set out the details of what happened.
At approximately 3:40pm on 6 November 2022, the complainant, referred to as RB, aged 13 years was riding his mountain bike in the Green Point Plaza Carpark in Bridgewater in a direction from the western entrance to the eastern side.
What then happened was captured on CCTV cameras. He can be seen looking behind him to avoid any vehicles. The defendant entered the carpark from the western entrance and began driving towards the eastern side. Some distance ahead of the defendant, the complainant performed a ‘mono’ and then looked behind again. Seeing the defendant’s vehicle, he moved to the side of the car park near the parked cars.
The defendant accelerated towards the complainant and struck his bicycle. The front right-hand side of the car struck the back wheel of the bicycle. At that point, the complainant was almost half a metre inside a designated car space. The defendant’s vehicle could easily have collided with a parked vehicle with three people in it, in the adjacent car space.
The impact caused the complainant’s bike to move out from underneath him. The complainant fell to the ground and hit his head. He was not wearing a helmet. The impact mangled the back wheel of the complainant’s bicycle and caused damage to the frame.
The complainant got up and ran towards the Woolworths shopping centre to find his mother. He was terrified and ran into supermarket yelling for help. The defendant stopped his car in the middle of the right-hand lane and chased the complainant in a state of fury, yelling that he was going to kill him and that his bike was stolen.
The complainant’s mother confronted the defendant and told him that the bike was not his. The defendant left and then looked closely at the bike and got in his car and drove away.
Police officers contacted the defendant and he voluntarily attended the police station and participated in a record of interview. He admitted colliding with the complainant on his bicycle but said that he hit him after he did a mono when his wheel went back down. He admitted that he thought the complainant was riding his own bike which had recently been stolen and that was why he chased him into the supermarket.
I have the benefit of an analysis of the scene conducted by a police officer and the CCTV footage which enables a conclusion to be drawn about the defendant’s speed, which I will return to, and which establishes the defendant did not apply his brakes before he collided with the bicycle.
In the interview, the defendant admitted leaving the carpark with alacrity but stated he was scared for his safety because he was being confronted by members of the public. There certainly was ill-feeling towards him by members of the public and that explanation is accepted by me.
The complainant was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital for assessment. He was discharged from the hospital with minor injuries such as bruising.
The background to this offending is that the defendant had had his bicycle stolen from his home the week before the incident. Then, having driven into the carpark and seeing the complainant on a bicycle which looked like his, he assumed it was and accelerated on his approach. He accelerated significantly at about the time the complainant performed the mono. As I have said, he made an assumption that the bicycle was his and, enraged, he pursued the cyclist to strike him.
Having reviewed the CCTV footage, and taking into account the analysis that I have mentioned, I find that in the moments prior to the impact, he was accelerating, and at the point of impact, he was travelling at a speed greater than 42 kilometres per hour. He was pursuing the cyclist and he steered towards him. He steered to the right, narrowly missing a parked car, and struck the cyclist in the car space. He deliberately assaulted Master B by striking him with his car. When the complainant ran off, he pursued him, acting under the mistaken belief that he was the culprit with respect to his stolen bicycle.
His intention to strike the cyclist was reactionary and in the heat of anger. I do not find he had formed an intention to cause the cyclist bodily harm. His thinking may have been no more than an intention to strike the cyclist, as a decisive action to stop him in his tracks in order to secure his bicycle, without thought of the consequences.
This is a particularly shocking case of dangerous driving and assault. If this act of driving had been directed at another vehicle, it would have been very serious. However, this case is so much worse. The victim was completely unprotected and not wearing a helmet. To drive at a child on a bicycle and strike them, subjecting the child to the forces of a collision with a motor vehicle travelling at speed, is an appalling and extremely serious act of violence.
The child could easily have sustained permanent and serious bodily injury or been killed. It is extremely fortunate that he sustained only minor injuries. He was, however, subjected to a traumatic experience that adversely affected him for a while, and his family were very shocked and worried for him.
The defendant was 25 years of age at the time of offending. He has no prior convictions.
While he pleaded guilty, it was at a very late stage and the disputed facts hearing required all but one of the State witnesses to be called to give evidence. He should receive minimal discount for his plea of guilty.
The defendant’s childhood was difficult and he lacked positive role models. He had no contact with his father from early childhood. His mother was an alcoholic and addicted to drugs and she encouraged his drug usage, which commenced at a very young age of 13. He was also encouraged to steal. After experiencing college in grade 11 and being exposed to positive influences, his life took a different path. He says he became more caring and compassionate as a consequence of those influences. Then, his mother died of a brain aneurysm when he was only 17 which was very difficult and distressing.
At the young age of 19 he became a father to twins. He was effectively a sole carer after he separated from their mother when the twins were one and a half.
He has been determined to be a good father to them. He is not working at present and his focus is on looking after the children. He is now in a stable relationship and has been for five years. His partner is supportive of him and his children.
I have not accepted the defendant’s explanation for his offending that he gave in evidence at the disputed facts hearing. However, I do accept that on the day of the incident, he was stressed and preoccupied with concerns about his partner.
He has taken the responsible step of seeking counselling from a psychologist. He is consulting a psychologist to assist with anger management and emotional dysregulation. He has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the assistance he is receiving encompasses that disorder. I note there was a period when, as an adult, he was consuming cannabis, but he has been abstinent for over two years, which is a most positive step in the right direction.
I have a report from Community Corrections indicating that the defendant is suitable for a Home Detention Order and community service. He was asked about his attitude to engaging with anger management counselling and he stated he would have no concerns and believed he would gain something from it. The author of the Community Corrections report spoke to the defendant’s psychologist and she described the defendant as engaging well and accepting responsibility.
I have a letter from the defendant and a number of references. He expresses remorse and understanding of the potential consequences of his actions and says he will do everything within his power to avoid being in court again. The references from other people speak of him as a devoted father and a caring person who has overcome adversity and that his offending is seen as completely out of character.
For the reasons I have explained, the nature of these crimes is very serious. There is a strong need for general deterrence and denunciation. A lengthy gaol sentence would almost invariably be imposed for this kind of crime.
However, I must take into account Mr Baldwin’s personal circumstances. Mr Baldwin, I regard you as someone who made a terrible decision when in a heightened state of anger. You do not have a propensity for violence. You have learnt a salutary lesson, and in my view you are most unlikely to reoffend. You are motivated to be a productive and law-abiding member of society. Your children provide you with a strong incentive in that regard and you have the support of your partner.
This is a case where it is appropriate to give significant weight to your rehabilitation, while also imposing a sentence which will be effective as a general deterrent and reflect the seriousness of the crime and the potential for terrible harm to the complainant. I am satisfied that it is, in this particular case, appropriate to take an exceptional course and impose a sentence which does not involve an immediate term of imprisonment. I will impose a lengthy Home Detention Order and a Community Correction Order with an obligation to perform community service.
If not for this sentence of home detention, I would have imposed a term of imprisonment.
Home detention is a punitive sentence effectively involving you being detained in your home and deprived of ordinary freedoms. There will be strict conditions and if they are breached, you will be brought back to court and an actual term of imprisonment may be substituted.
I record convictions with respect to the indictable crimes and the summary offence. On the crimes, I impose a global sentence as follows:
A Home Detention Order of 12 months. I impose the core conditions in s 42AD(1) of the Sentencing Act, and this includes an obligation that you are not to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for the term of 12 months.
You must attend the Community Corrections office at 111 Cameron Street, Launceston, for induction onto this order by 9:00 am tomorrow.
You must remain at [current residential address specified] unless absence is approved by a probation officer or for a “relevant reason” as provided by the Sentencing Act, s 42AD(4). You must submit to electronic monitoring in accordance with s 42AD(g) for the entirety of the period of 12 months.
Additionally, I impose another three conditions, as set out in the Community Corrections report:
You must, for the period of 12 months, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times.
You must not, for the same period, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit or prohibited substances include any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act, which of course includes cannabis, any medication including an opiate, benzodiazepine, bupropion, hydrochloride, or pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.
You must submit to the supervision of a community correction officer as required by that officer.
I also make a Community Correction Order for two years which requires that you not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for that period. I impose a special condition that you complete 140 hours of community service.
I impose a period of licence disqualification with respect to the dangerous driving for two years. Your licence is cancelled.
Other than a conviction, there is no penalty in relation to the summary offence.