STATE OF TASMANIA v SCOTT JOHN CHAPMAN 17 DECEMBER 2021
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Mr Chapman, the defendant, pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to one count of assault and appears in this Court for sentence. The facts are as follows. The offence was committed on 10 April 2021. The victim, Todd Bates, was then in a relationship with a woman with whom the defendant had previously been in a relationship, Cassandra Broughton. The defendant and Ms Broughton had been in a relationship which had ended in 2018. They had three children together; the eldest is now 10 years old. Mr Bates and Ms Broughton were in a shelter at a barbecue area in a park in Sandy Bay. The defendant arrived, sat with the couple for a period of time speaking with them for about an hour before leaving. He returned later in the afternoon at about 3pm. He did not engage with the couple but loitered around the shelter. Ms Broughton asked him to leave on three occasions but he refused. The defendant was drinking heavily from a cask and appeared to be angry at Mr Bates. At about 7pm, the defendant was standing on one side of the picnic table, while Mr Bates was positioned on the other side. The defendant reached across the table and punched Mr Bates to the nose, and continued to hit him in the mouth. The defendant continued the assault by going around the table and punching Mr Bates several more times to the head and face. Mr Bates did not attempt to fight back but tried to protect himself by covering his head with his arms. During the assault the defendant said to Mr Bates, “I’m going to fucking kill you”. Upon Mr Bates falling to the ground and curling up to protect himself, the defendant kicked him in the face twice. He was wearing steel capped boots at the time. During all of this Ms Broughton was attempting to get the defendant away but was unable to stop him. Ms Broughton had yelled out for somebody to call the police and two witnesses who overhead the commotion came to assist, and called police. The defendant stayed in the area and was pacing around. He was heard to say things to the effect of “I should’ve killed you.” Police arrived and the defendant was arrested. When interviewed he made full admissions. He said he had asked Ms Broughton whether she wanted him or Mr Bates and when she said Mr Bates, it caused him to lose his temper. He said he was not happy that the couple had been living on the streets. He put it down to a jealous rage. He said he had been drinking heavily and admitted intending to seriously hurt Mr Bates. When examined at the hospital, Mr Bates was found to have a comminuted nasal fracture, minor facial abrasions, significantly bruised and swollen eyes, with dried blood over the scalp, ears and face. A few days later he could not see out of one of his eyes and he had a swollen lip that made it hard to talk. The medical examination suggested he was likely to make a full recovery. I have a victim impact statement dated 4 November 2021. Mr Bates says he now has a permanent scar on his nose. He complains of forgetfulness, nightmares and insomnia. He keeps thinking about the incident and is generally more aware and nervous now, with particular anxiety if he is in an area where he thinks the defendant might be.
The defendant is now 44. He has a recorded history of offending in this State going back to September 2004, at which time he was convicted of disorderly conduct. In July 2001 he was convicted of a summary assault along with some minor drug offences. Further drug offending was dealt with in April 2016, and in April 2018 he was convicted of disturbing the peace by fighting and destroying property. He has a recorded history of offending in five other States. Relevant offending was dealt with in 2009 in South Australia. In February of that year he was convicted of an assault that caused harm, and made the subject of a good behaviour bond. A few months later he was dealt with for the crime of robbery and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. In Western Australia in 2007, there was a conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm, but in respect of that offence, he was made the subject of a community-based order, with 18 months supervision. There have been earlier matters but they are of some age. I have a report from Community Corrections and the assistance of counsel’s submissions. The defendant was brought up in New South Wales. He seems to have had significant behavioural issues as a child and was apparently subject to periods of care to provide respite to his mother. He was expelled from high school after completing year 9 and has not engaged in any employment since 2011, having been able to work in fishing, fruit picking and vehicle construction. He is presently in receipt of a disability support pension. Importantly, he has a very significant history of alcohol abuse at a high level. He has had periods of drug addiction which he has managed to overcome, but it is his alcohol problem that is the main issue. His drug use is now confined to the occasional use of cannabis. It seems that he was itinerant for quite a time before he met Ms Broughton. That relationship brought some stability, and when that ended he again became itinerant. It seems that he encountered Ms Broughton by chance on this occasion and when with them, he became aware that they were homeless. This caused him to become angry. He says he does not consider himself a violent person and regrets his behaviour. His high level of intoxication contributed to his emotional response. He now believes his offending will have ruined any chance of a possible reconciliation with Ms Broughton. He seems to have insight into his offending, accepting that he could have killed Mr Bates. He is remorseful. He also co-operated with police. After this offence he moved away from the Hobart region. He moved to the north-west coast where a kind soul found him living in a local park and who, after some discussions, offered the defendant accommodation. I have a letter of support from this man. The defendant has been sleeping in the garage of the man’s home-stay bed and breakfast accommodation. The defendant is presently awaiting a vacancy at a caravan park. He is attempting to reduce his alcohol intake, and continues to have the support of his host. Because of the situation with his accommodation, he is unsuitable for home detention and he has also been assessed as unsuitable for community service. There are concerns about his suitability for supervision as it is thought his accommodation and substance abuse issues may pose a significant barrier to engagement and general compliance.
This is a matter which calls for a sentence reflecting factors of general deterrence and denunciation. This was an unprovoked drunken attack and one persisted in, and which included kicks to the head while the complainant was on the ground. It was in a public space and witnessed by others. Such drunken and cowardly attacks need to be condemned. It is very fortunate that Mr Bates was not more seriously injured, and he effectively seems to have made a full recovery, although he continues to have some emotional difficulties. I take into account the guilty plea at a very early stage of the proceedings and his co-operation. I closely considered whether actual imprisonment is necessary, but it seems to me that in the defendant’s present circumstances there are prospects of rehabilitation and, given his insight and attempts to reduce his alcohol intake, the matter can be properly dealt with by way a term of imprisonment, wholly suspended but on conditions that will include supervision by a Community Corrections officer.
Mr Chapman, I have set out the relevant facts and the considerations to be taken into account, both ones that operate against you and ones that operate in your favour. I have decided, as I said, that immediate imprisonment is not called for, but I am going to impose a term that will include a condition you comply with the supervision of a probation officer for quite a period and comply with other conditions of the order which follows through the making of that order. You are convicted of the crime. You are sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment, the execution of the whole of which is suspended on condition you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years. It is also suspended on condition that you submit to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of 18 months. The law is that, having done that, a community correction order has in effect come into existence. There will be special conditions as follows. You must, during the operational period of that order, that is the 18 months:
1 attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer.
2 submit to the supervision of the officer –that is already a condition of suspension.
3 undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol dependency as directed by a probation officer.
4 comply with any reasonable directions given to you by a probation officer in relation to your accommodation.
The last thing I need to do is simply explain to you that this sentence of imprisonment has been suspended on conditions. These will be outlined to you in writing. I have explained them to you, but if you breach any of these conditions by further offending or in any other way, you can be brought back and dealt with by the Court. If you breach a condition of the suspended sentence the law is that a judge must activate that sentence unless it is unjust to do so. So you need to bear that in mind. I direct that you report to a probation officer at 46 Mount Street, Burnie by 5pm on Monday, 20 December.