STATE OF TASMANIA v JAMES LAURENCE BANNISTER ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 17 OCTOBER 2025
The defendant James Laurence Bannister, born 18 June 2004 has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated car jacking and one count of assault. He was 18 years old at the time of the offending and his co-accused, Jamie Paul Wilmott, was 33 years old. The complainant, Robert Leslie Barber, was aged 50 at the time and all three men were known to each other. The complainant had previously given both men lifts in his father’s Mazda motor vehicle.
On 1 July 2022, at about 7 o’clock in the evening, the complainant received a text message from Wilmott. Wilmott asked the complainant to give him a lift. The complainant replied “from where to where? Wilmott called the complainant and said he was in Claremont. The complainant agreed to give him a lift and asked whether there would be anyone else with him. Wilmott said that he would be alone.
Wilmott asked the complainant to pick him up from near a shop in Innes Street. The complainant agreed. He was already in Innes Street on his way to a bottle shop.
At approximately 8:00pm he was sitting in the vehicle, parked adjacent to the Club Hotel, facing towards Grove Road. He saw a male approach his vehicle, who he recognised as the defendant, known to him as “Jimmy”.
The defendant opened the driver’s side door of the vehicle and punched the complainant to the face. The complainant attempted to fight back but Wilmott opened the front passenger door and started to punch the complainant as well. The complainant ended up on the ground outside the vehicle, with both Wilmott and the defendant kicking and punching him. He got to his feet and started to run towards the Club Hotel carpark but he tripped, fell over and dislocated a finger on his right hand. He said that he was not running, and Wilmott replied. “you are coming with us.” The complainant attempted to stall Wilmott by saying he needed time to breathe but Wilmott said “you are coming with us and we are taking the car.”
Whilst walking back to the vehicle the complainant attempted to escape by fighting with both men, however during the scuffle, the complainant fell to the ground and Wilmott bent down and said words to the effect of “I’ve got a knife to your neck, don’t try and struggle…” The complainant felt a sharp object pressed up to his throat.
The complainant surrendered and got into the vehicle with both men. Wilmott got into the driver’s seat and the defendant sat in the back seat with the complainant. Wilmott drove to an address in Glenorchy, the residence of Kyra Bearman, who was Wilmott’s partner at the time. The vehicle arrived at the property at about 10:00pm. The defendant entered the property and returned a short time later with Bearman and entered the vehicle.
Wilmott drove the group to the United Petrol Station on the Brooker Highway in Lutana and brought some petrol, which was paid for. Wilmot continued to drive the vehicle around Lutana. While on Lennox Avenue, as the vehicle slowed, the complainant jumped out of the vehicle and sought refuge in the yard of a nearby residence. The vehicle left the area, and the complainant sought assistance from the residence.
The occupant called for Police and Ambulance assistance and ultimately the complainant was taken via ambulance to the Royal Hobart Hospital, where he was found to have a fractured rib, a lung contusion, a dislocated finger, a broken finger, and lacerations to his face and body. He was admitted and was in hospital for two days.
On 13 July 2022, the defendant attended the Glenorchy Police station. He was arrested, charged and bailed with conditions.
On 2 July 2022, at approximately 1:30am the complainant’s vehicle was located on fire in the Dowsing Point area. It was completely destroyed.
The defendant was born in Tasmania. He and his younger sisters grew up in the care of their parents, who struggled with illicit substance use throughout the defendant’s childhood. The defendant states that although his parents attempted to conceal their substance use from their children, he was aware of that use for “as long as [he] can remember”. The defendant also that his parents’ drug use appeared to become more frequent and severe as he got older and that by the time he was 11, he was aware that his parents were also selling illicit substances.
When the defendant was 12, his father committed suicide. In the defendant’s words, he felt “destroyed” by this. It caused him enormous distress to see his mother and younger sisters, then nine and seven years old, so unhappy. He felt significant pressure to “play the man role” for his family in his father’s absence, but described feeling at a loss as to what to do as a 12-year-old. The defendant, himself, began experiencing chronic suicidal ideation. His symptoms of ADHD and OCD, both of which he had been diagnosed with previously, also worsened.
His family life destabilised following his father’s death as his mother’s drug use increased in frequency. Other family members ultimately intervened and when the defendant was 14, he and his sisters were taken to live with their maternal grandparents. After weeks without contact with their mother, she attended the defendant’s grandparents’ home to ask for the children to be returned. The defendant’s grandparents insisted that the younger children remain living with them but the defendant, wanting to support his mother, asked to resume living with her.
The defendant describes the following two years as transient, spending periods living with his mother and periods with his grandparents. His mother did not have stable accommodation and when the defendant lived with her they were largely couch-surfing, relying on friends for accommodation and moving from one address to another. At times the defendant would have no contact with his mother and be unaware of her whereabouts for days at a time. When the defendant was 16, his mother obtained accommodation and the defendant began living solely with her.
From the age of 14 onwards, when the defendant did have contact with his mother, he regularly witnessed her and associates of hers using drugs. The defendant had first used cannabis at age 12, after his father’s death, but did not use the substance frequently. Watching his mother and her friends use drugs encouraged him to experiment with other illicit substances and, at age 14, he began using methamphetamine and found it helped him to cope with his suicidal thoughts and with his symptoms of ADHD and OCD. From that age onwards, he used methamphetamine regularly.
Notwithstanding his difficulties, however, he continued at New Town High School, where he had been enrolled since grade seven. He was excluded from the school’s regular timetable at the end of grade nine, but he enrolled in grades ten and eleven on a part-time basis and completed both years in 2020 and 2021.
His record of prior convictions reflects that his first contact with the criminal justice system occurred when he was 16 years old, although this was not extensive. Before his eighteenth birthday, he was dealt with by a court in relation to one matter, a complaint comprising one count of burglary and one count of stealing. That complaint was dismissed with the defendant giving an undertaking to be of good behaviour, which undertaking, to his credit, he did not breach.
The defendant was arrested and charged with the current offending on 13 July 2022. He was then admitted to bail by police. Seven days later, he was again arrested and charged with further offending (in relation to which he was ultimately proceeded against for two summary offences). He made an application for bail and bail was opposed.
After two nights in custody, he was granted bail with conditions, and because his surety was not able to make the payment required before the closure of the Court that evening, he was remanded in custody over the weekend. In total, the defendant spent five days in custody before his release on bail in relation to this matter on 25 July 2022. He describes this experience as “terrible” and it impressed upon him the importance of ensuring that he did not behave in a way in future that would lead him to return to custody. I take into account his time in custody, as well as his determination not to allow it to occur again.
The defendant began making changes to his personal circumstances on his release from custody. He had been bailed to live with his maternal grandparents, he reengaged with his education, and he recommenced prescription medication. Although he was not able to achieve immediate abstinence from methamphetamine, he made significant efforts to reduce his use of that drug.
He completed grade 12 at the end of 2022. He obtained employment in the hospitality industry, which he maintained for several months. He began a relationship with his partner, and in early 2023 they learned that they were expecting a child together.
The defendant continued to make efforts to cease his use of methamphetamine. He found it challenging because for a period after the defendant completed grade 12, he was unable to access prescription medication. The birth of his son in 2023 motivated him to achieve and maintain abstinence, and he was supported during that time by prescription medication to manage his psychiatric symptoms. He instructs his counsel that he has been abstinent from methamphetamine since his sons birth in 2023. To establish this, helpfully, the defendant undertook a drug screening in anticipation of his last court appearance. The results which were provided to me were negative for all illicit substances. I am very significantly influenced by this in taking the course I propose to take.
The defendant continues to engage with treatment for his mental health. He was first referred to Statewide Mental Health Services in June 2023. He has taken medication daily. He was discharged in February 2025 and his medication regime is now managed by his general practitioner. Although he experiences ongoing symptoms, in particular of OCD, he tells his counsel that medication assists him significantly in managing those symptoms.
In mid-2024, the defendant and his partner obtained private rental accommodation. They live there together with their son, who is nearly two years old, and will soon welcome a second baby, due in November 2025. Child Safety Services are not involved with their parenting of the children.
The defendant is, I am told, a dedicated and loving father. He describes his son as an ongoing source of motivation for him to be abstinent from drugs and make positive choices. He states that being a parent is the best experience he has ever had, and that he wants to “be there” for his son. He fears that incarceration would prevent that from happening.
The defendant is currently in receipt of the JobSeeker payment. Although he has been told that he would be eligible for Disability Support. He is eager to obtain employment to financially support himself and his young family. He is engaged with WorkSkills. He has obtained certification to enter and work in confined spaces, certification to work safely at heights, a learner driver’s licence, and a White Card. His uncle, in recognition of him gaining these skills and qualifications, has offered him a position in the team he supervises at a mining company in Western Australia.
The defendant has been charged with only two substantive offences since he was admitted to court bail in relation to this matter. He was sentenced on one charge on a global basis, with a Community Correction Order being imposed without the recording of convictions.
The other substantive offence with which he was charged, was a charge of common assault, which occurred in October 2023. The defendant was sentenced on the basis that in coming to his friend’s aid, he overreacted and assaulted the complainant to an extent not necessary in the circumstances. No conviction was recorded.
The defendant has not been charged with any offence since November 2023. Notably, the curfew condition of his bail was removed in February 2024 and he has demonstrated since that time that he can live in the community without offending.
The seriousness of the crime of assault needs no explanation. The crime of carjacking is now also recognised as a very serious crime against both person and property, and one which appears to be coming far too prevalent. However, the circumstances of the offending in this case, and the defendant’s exceptional personal circumstances, including his age at the time and his self motivation to change behaviours, are such as to permit of a sentence falling short of actual imprisonment.
The defendant is convicted of both crimes to which he has pleaded guilty and I impose a single sentence of nine months’ home detention.
The order will contain all the core conditions contained in s 42AD (1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997 and in particular in relation to s42AD (1)(g) and (h), the following conditions are added to the Order:
- you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device;
- during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:
- you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic 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 any electronic 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, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by a police officer, a probation officer or a prescribed officer, or another person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring.
The following special conditions are added to the Order:
- you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [address redcated] during the times of 6:00pm to 6:00am Monday to Sunday, unless approved by a probation officer;
- you must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction onto this order, no later than 10:00am on Monday, 20 October 2025;
- you must, during the operational period of the order, 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 submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer;
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication, and, you must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol.
Finally, I note that the period of home detention of nine months, is a little longer than I might otherwise have imposed by way of home detention, but I take into account the fact that the home detention order is significantly modified in order to allow for greater access services and to allow the defendant to assist his young family.