STATE OF TASMANIA v ALEXANDER HUGH QUINCEY CARTER WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 15 DECEMBER 2023
Alexander Hugh Quincey Carter has pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving, two counts of assault on indictment, and two summary offences of destroy property and using controlled plant or its products.
On 2 September 2022, the complainant, Katlin Henderson, ended her relationship with the defendant after they had been together for approximately one year. The defendant sent her abusive and threatening voice and text messages, including messages saying: “I’m going to ruin you”, “You knew I wasn’t having my meds today as well so enjoy the ride” and, “You will feel as hurt as I do by the time I’m finished.”
That evening, the defendant attended Ms Henderson’s parents’ address in Judbury and dropped off some of her possessions. He threw them on the ground and drove over them, destroying her laptop. Before delivering her possessions, he had cut up her clothing with scissors, and poured cat litter through her clothing.
Later that same evening, the defendant’s parents became aware that he was threatening to kill himself and burn their house down. They alerted police, who attended. The defendant tried to drive away, and his tyres were spiked. He was taken into protective custody by police and then taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital where he presented in a distressed state, threatening suicide. The defendant was assessed and later discharged during the morning of 3 September.
On 3 September 2022, the defendant phoned his ex-partner and told her to pass on a message to Ms Henderson that he would kill her if he saw her again, or if she set foot on his property. Later that day, the defendant was at a café in Huonville with his ex-partner, their children, his mother, and a friend, and he saw Ms Henderson drive past in a Toyota Camry with Jamie Armstrong. The defendant told his ex-partner that he was going after Ms Henderson to, “Stir shit up” and left in his car, a Ford Falcon.
Jamie Armstrong was driving the vehicle and Ms Henderson was in the front passenger seat. Their one-year old son was in a child restraint in the back seat. Mr Armstrong drove along Wilmot Road, into Ranelagh. The defendant pursued Mr Armstrong, tail-gating his car. On Louisa Street, the defendant overtook Mr Armstrong in a particularly dangerous manoeuvre as it was on a section of the road 200 metres long with double continuous lines along its length, and a sharp blind corner at either end. On overtaking Mr Armstrong, the defendant stopped in front of his car, forcing him to stop. Both cars were stationary in the middle of the road. At first, Mr Armstrong was unable to go around the defendant as there was a car coming the other way. After that car went past, Mr Armstrong manoeuvred his car around the defendant’s car and, in doing so, collided with the rear of the defendant’s vehicle. He then drove along Glen Road, Ranelagh, trying to get away from the defendant.
Mr Armstrong drove along Glen Road and was followed by the defendant. The defendant came up alongside Mr Armstrong’s car and, in doing so, collided with the right rear panel of his car, causing both cars to spin out of control. The defendant deliberately drove into the back of Mr Armstrong’s vehicle, and that act of deliberate driving gives rise to the two counts of assault. I note it is not suggested that the defendant had an intention of running them off the road, but it was a deliberate collision. The defendant’s car hit a power pole and came to a stop in Glen Road.
Mr Armstrong’s car spun 180 degrees and came to rest with the passenger side against a tree, facing the direction in which it had come. The passenger window shattered, showering glass on the baby in the back seat. The passenger side doors caved in and could not be opened. The defendant got out of his car and from a distance yelled at Mr Armstrong that he was going to kill him, but did not approach Mr Armstrong or Ms Henderson.
The defendant was arrested by police at the scene and participated in a record of interview. He referred to Ms Henderson having broken off the relationship by leaving a note on the kitchen bench. He admitted damaging her property but said he did not mean to break her laptop. He told police he has severe ADHD and has difficulties controlling his emotions. He told police he consumed cannabis on the date of the break-up of the relationship, which gives rise to the summary offence of using controlled plants or its products. He told police that when he was at the café, Ms Henderson and Mr Armstrong drove past and he was concerned about her and only wanted to talk to her, which was untrue. He said that after he overtook Mr Armstrong and pulled in front of him, he saw that Mr Armstrong had stopped and then the rear of his car was rammed. At that point, he took off after him. He said that at the time of the collision, he was planning to overtake and then slow down, and he wanted to make sure Ms Henderson was okay, which again was untrue. He said he did not realise the infant was in the car but saw the baby seat. He told police he was glad no one was injured, and I accept that that was true.
The defendant has been remanded in custody since 3 September 2022. His Ford was inspected by authorities and found to be unsafe in several respects, including a non-certified power steering modification, excessively worn front suspension ball joints, and a non-functioning ABS system, among other issues and modifications. While it is not suggested that these issues contributed to the collision, they are a relevant circumstance in considering the defendant’s dangerous driving and in assessing the risk he posed by that dangerous driving.
I have victim impact statements from Ms Henderson and Mr Armstrong which speak of the fear and the stress they experienced during the defendant’s act of dangerous driving. They have been emotionally and psychologically affected. Mr Armstrong has also been financially affected as he had to borrow money to buy another car.
Mr Carter is 33 years of age. He has a relevant history of prior offending, including convictions for dangerous driving and evading police in 2011, which attracted a wholly suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment; in 2019 for driving a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in blood; and in November 2022 for offences committed in May 2021 of breach of a family violence order by contacting a former partner. That offending attracted a 12 month community correction order. Mr Carter has not been subject to a term of actual imprisonment in the past.
I have been provided with a report by forensic psychiatrist, Dr Michael Jordan. The defendant has significant mental health issues and was treated during his early childhood for attention hyperactivity disorder and oppositional behaviours. He became involved in the use of alcohol and cannabis at a young age of approximately 14. As an adult, his ADHD means he has a propensity for impulsive decision-making and a lack of consideration of potential consequences. He has various personality disorder traits, is vulnerable to suicidal and self-harm ideation in the face of stressors, and has a propensity to anger. In particular, he is prone to extreme reactions in the face of stressors either by threats of suicide, threats to property, and on occasions threats towards people, including those close to him. The combination of attention deficit disorder and the personality flaws that he possesses does lead to the capacity for disinhibited and threatening responses to challenges.
Dr Jordan is of the opinion that at the time of the offending, the defendant’s mental health status was compromised and he was struggling to process the end of his relationship with Ms Henderson. This precipitated the conduct that led to him being assessed at the Royal Hobart Hospital. While his mental state was improved by the time of his discharge from hospital, the chance sighting of Ms Henderson some hours later led to feelings of loss and deficiency. These circumstances and his propensity for impulsive decisions complicated the effects of his dysfunctional personality traits and provides, says Dr Jordan, a starting point for understanding his response to the situation. Dr Jordan states that while there is a nexus between his mental health issues and his offending, it is not considered that his moral culpability is reduced, adding as explanation that while he would have difficulty managing his responses to challenging situations, this does not mean he had no control over his actions.
In my view, I should proceed on the basis that at the time of the defendant’s act of driving and offending, he was in a particularly heightened emotional state and was experiencing difficulty in controlling his responses and his extreme reactions. As a consequence, his mental functioning was impaired to an extent in terms of his ability to exercise appropriate judgment and his ability to make calm and rational choices, although Dr Jordan’s opinion does not suggest it was a significant impairment. In my view, it is appropriate that this be reflected in the sentence as his ability to control his responses is reduced to some degree.
These are serious charges. The defendant drove dangerously with the purpose of instilling fear. The facts do not suggest he set out to physically harm the complainants, but he certainly wanted them to believe that he would. A number of his acts of driving placed the occupants in a situation of grave risk, particularly his act of overtaking Mr Armstrong and stopping in front of him, and then driving alongside him. His act of deliberately driving into Mr Armstrong’s vehicle is a particular of the dangerous driving and amounts to the two counts of assault, and care has been taken in fixing the sentences to ensure Mr Carter is not doubly punished in relation to the act of deliberately colliding with Mr Armstrong’s vehicle. In that act he used his car as a weapon to inflict violence and expose Mr Armstrong and Ms Henderson to very real danger. The lives of the occupants were placed at extreme risk. Both complainants and the child could very easily have been killed.
There is a need for the sentence to be an effective deterrent to the defendant and also others who may be tempted to offend in this way, and it must adequately reflect the seriousness of his conduct. The defendant’s rehabilitation, however, remains an important consideration. Indeed, it is vital to the safety of the community that he receives intervention to address the risk of a similar response in the future.
In Dr Jordan’s view, the defendant requires psychological therapy to enable him to understand his dysfunctional responses to stressors and enable modification of those responses. Dr Jordan says that Mr Carter needs profound long-term psychotherapy. Mr Carter’s parents are very supportive and will enable such psychological therapy. In fact, they have already consulted with Dr Reid who has indicated he would provide the recommended treatment.
Mr Carter, in relation to the two counts of assault, I record convictions and impose two years’ imprisonment, which is backdated to 3 September 2022. You are to be eligible to apply for parole once you have served the minimum non-parole period of 12 months of that sentence. In fact, that means that in relation to that sentence, you are eligible to apply for parole now.
In relation to the dangerous driving, I record a conviction and I impose 15 months’ imprisonment, five months to be served concurrently with the term of two years, and not to impact upon your eligibility for parole. The balance of ten months is suspended for a period of two years from the date of your release.
The conditions of the suspension of that 10 months are that you must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years from the date of your release; you must comply with the supervision of a probation officer for that period; you must comply with all the reasonable and lawful directions of your probation officer, report as required and receive visits as required, and provide notice before or within 24 hours of any change of address or employment; you must comply with all the directions of your probation officer in terms of medical, psychiatric, and psychological therapy and treatment and assessment, including the psychotherapy recommended by Dr Jordan in his report dated 10 October 2023.
That leaves the summary offences and with respect to those, I record convictions and I consider no further sentence is required.
I impose a period of licence disqualification of four years from today, and your licence is cancelled.
I make an order that charge two on indictment, assaulting Katlin Henderson, be recorded as a family violence offence.