STATE OF TASMANIA v TIMOTHY JAMES CONNELL 9 FEBRUARY 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Timothy Connell, you were found guilty by a jury of assault. The crime was committed in the early hours of 7 March 2021 at the Commercial Hotel. You punched Hayden Mehmet twice. You admitted doing so but claimed that you were acting in lawful defence of your partner, Catherine French. It follows from the verdict that the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the force you applied to Mr Mehmet was not justified in that way. Subject to that verdict it is for me to determine the facts for sentence. Facts adverse to you must be proved to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt.
The assault occurred in an outdoor area at the hotel. The jury saw CCTV footage which, although it is of relatively poor quality, was important evidence at the trial. Ms French was with her friend Kellie Walters at one of the tables. I found both to be truthful and reliable witnesses. You were only a step or two away in a queue at the bar. Ms Walters was aggressively confronted by a female, Ashley McDermott. Ms Walters and Ms McDermott were once friends but had fallen out. On this night, neither Ms Walters nor Ms French did anything to provoke any disagreement. Ms McDermott was intoxicated and aggressively approached Ms Walters from some distance away. Ms French stepped in to shield Ms Walters and asked Ms McDermott to go away. Your attention was drawn to the confrontation at which time you also saw Mr Mehmet approaching. Mr Mehmet was one of the people who had been with Ms McDermott at the hotel. He also heard the exchange of raised voices, approached Ms McDermott from behind her and stood near her. I am satisfied that he did so intending only to diffuse the confrontation and remove Ms McDermott from it, and did not intend to confront Ms French or Ms Walters either verbally or physically. However, when you were all quite close, Ms McDermott lashed out at Ms French, striking her on the shoulder. Events then happened quickly. There was an immediate reaction from the people nearby and a confused scuffle occurred. In evidence you claimed that you thought Mr Mehmet posed a direct threat to Ms French and that you heard a person you thought was him say something like “bash her”. I am satisfied that he did not make any such threat although it is possible you misheard him say Ms McDermott’s nickname, Asher. You also claimed that the first thing you did was punch him. I reject that claim, as I think the jury must also have done. After Ms McDermott hit Ms French either you, or someone else, pushed Mr Mehmet back away from her. It only took a very short time, only a few seconds depending on interpretation of the CCTV, but it was far enough in time and distance for you to appreciate that Mr Mehmet posed no further threat to Ms French. However you then proceeded to punch Mr Mehmet twice. The force you applied to Mr Mehmet to push him away from Ms French, if it was you who did that, was justified. It would also have been justified to hold him away. However you then punched him twice, and hard enough to fracture his eye socket and break his nose. That was a completely excessive response. I cannot be certain about why you did so. It may have been from spontaneous anger. Perhaps it was a wish to be a dominating influence in the situation, or an automatic violent response against a person you understood to have been associated with the female who struck your partner. But it was not because of a genuine belief that such force was necessary to defend Ms French. That moment had passed. It was not suggested by anyone that he posed any threat to you.
Mr Mehmet suffered a serious injury. He required surgery to repair and realign the fractured bones and spent three days in hospital. He was off work for weeks. He seems to have recovered from his physical injuries, but his victim impact statement describes a serious ongoing psychological impact. I am to treat his victim impact statement with circumspection. It is possible that other factors may play a part in his ongoing psychological condition, but I have no doubt that this assault also plays a part. Those who inflict violence on others are responsible for the consequences, even if those consequences are contributed to by existing vulnerabilities of the victim.
You are now aged 43. You are in a relationship with Ms French. You have two children with her and have assumed a parental role for her oldest child. You have a strong employment background and I am satisfied that you are an industrious person. You have worked in meat works and as a furnace operator. More recently you have committed yourself both personally and financially to a franchise gardening business which is prospering and in which you have five employees. You do have a record for a range of offences including for violence. As a younger man you committed some anti-social offences including against the police. You served a term of imprisonment in 2008 for assault. In 2013 you were given two separate short suspended sentences for firearm offences and another common assault. There has however been no other offending which I regard as of particular relevance since then.
Courts and the community have a strong concern for violence committed in licensed establishments, often contributed to by alcohol. I accept your counsel’s submission that the circumstances of this crime are to be distinguished from others involving random or gratuitous drunken violence. Neither you, nor anyone in your party, initiated the incident. Ms French was subject to aggression, but not by Mr Mehmet. He did nothing to warrant the level of violence you displayed either, but it is a case of you going much too far even though some action was warranted. You are not entitled to the mitigation a plea of guilty would have attracted.
Because of the nature of the assault and the impact upon Mr Mehmet I sought a report about your suitability for the making of a home detention order. The busy work schedule imposed by your business and your family circumstances are both incompatible with obligations which would be imposed by such an order. Your partner has health problems and two of your children have high needs. All rely to a significant extent on your ability to support them and a home detention order would impose what I have concluded would be an unacceptable burden on the family unit. Of course that would be nothing compared to a sentence of actual imprisonment but I have decided to take an alternative course. I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but wholly suspended on condition that you submit to supervision. I will also impose a fine. I accept that your financial circumstances are tight but the fine is necessary to ensure punishment and deterrence.
Timothy Connell, you are convicted on the indictment. You are sentenced to imprisonment for eight months, wholly suspended for two years from today. It is a condition of that order that while it is in force you do not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then a court must order that you serve that term unless it is unjust. I impose a further condition that, during the period the order is in force, you are to be subject to the supervision of a probation officer. The conditions which the law imposes on that order include that you must report to a probation officer at Community Corrections, Oldaker Street Devonport on or before 5.00 pm on Tuesday 13 February 2024, you must, during the operational period of the order, report to a probation officer as required by the probation officer and comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of a probation officer or a supervisor, you must not, during the operational period of the order, leave, or remain outside, Tasmania without the permission of a probation officer and you must, during the operational period of the order, give notice to a probation officer of any change of address or employment before, or within 2 working days after, the change. I impose special conditions that you must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer, attend educational and other programs, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol or drug dependency, submit to testing for alcohol or drug use and submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer. If you breach any of those conditions you may be brought back to court and re-sentenced. I order that you pay a fine of $5,000. You have 28 days to pay that amount. If you require longer you may apply to enter into a repayment arrangement.