STATE OF TASMANIA v MASON GEORGE COOPER WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 17 JUNE 2025
Mason George Cooper has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated armed robbery. He has also pleaded guilty to a related summary offence of breach of bail conditions contrary to s 9 of the Bail Act 1994.
On 21 August 2024 during the afternoon, the complainant, Nicholas Graham John Hadley, arrived at a friend’s address in Port Sorell. He had driven there in his Holden Commodore VE S V6. Approximately 30 minutes later, the defendant arrived, and they began drinking together. At approximately 4:00 am, the defendant’s co-offenders and friends, Cody Matthew Pursell, aged 21, and Travis Anthony Morton, aged 29, and a female arrived to collect him and give him a lift. They did not know the complainant. They stayed a short while and left with the defendant.
Soon afterwards, the complainant went out to obtain medication from his vehicle. Just after he had retrieved his medication and was out of the car, the defendant, Mr Pursell, and Mr Morton approached him. The defendant grabbed the complainant around the neck using both hands and said, “Hand over the keys”. Initially, the complainant thought he was joking and did not comply. Mr Mortyn, however, produced an imitation firearm from his jumper and placed it to the complainant’s head and neck. The complainant believed it was a real firearm and handed the defendant his keys.
Mr Pursell then entered the driver’s seat, and the female entered the front passenger seat. Mr Mortyn then entered the car he had arrived in, which belonged to Mr Pursell’s partner, and the defendant entered the front passenger seat of that vehicle. The vehicles were driven away.
The complainant obtained a lift to a relative’s house in Devonport and the police were contacted.
Not long after, at approximately 5:00 am, the complainant spoke with the defendant via Facebook. The defendant told the complainant that he wanted $5,000 for the return of the vehicle and to not contact the police.
On 25 August 2024, the defendant and Mr Pursell were observed driving on the Tasman Bridge in the complainant’s vehicle and they were located in Lindisfarne and arrested.
The night of the crime, the defendant was in breach of his bail conditions which required that he remain at his residential address in Shearwater between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
The defendant participated in a police interview and made comprehensive admissions. He told police he placed the complainant in a headlock while Mr Mortyn pointed a firearm, which was not real but more of a toy, at the complainant, and that he and others took his vehicle. He asserted the complainant is a paedophile and had been inappropriate towards his niece, which is not accepted by the State. He told police it was not planned to go the way it did and that the initial plan was to physically assault the complainant. He told police he and his co-offenders drove the complainant’s vehicle to Hobart. He expressed remorse for his actions and said it was the wrong thing to do. I note, too, that he was cooperative with police and provided information and assistance as requested.
The defendant was detained in custody and has been remanded in custody since then. The imitation firearm was found at Mr Mortyn’s address.
The commission of this crime of aggravated armed robbery was, as the defendant told police, not pre-meditated. The defendant had arranged to be picked up by his co-offenders. There was no plan to steal the car. Rather, he made a spur of the moment decision when heavily intoxicated. When he put the complainant in a headlock and demanded the keys in the presence of Mr Mortyn and Mr Pursell, he did not anticipate that Mr Mortyn would become involved, and he did not anticipate that Mr Mortyn would pull out a firearm and point it at the complainant. In fact, he was unaware that Mr Mortyn had a firearm. He yelled at Mr Mortyn, “What are you doing?” and told him to lower the weapon.
Notwithstanding his actions at this point, the defendant continued to participate in the commission of the crime. He accepts that the escalation of a robbery to an aggravated armed robbery was a probable consequence of the intended robbery, and he is guilty of the crime on that basis. It is noted that his criminal responsibility is not as serious as it would be if he had intended that a weapon be used in the robbery and had intended that the co-offenders should help him in the robbery.
The complainant sustained a minor injury involving scratches to his neck but was subjected to a frightening experience, particularly having regard to the fact that he was led to believe the firearm was real.
The defendant was aged 18 at the time and is now 19 years old. He has relevant prior history as a youth but no prior convictions as an adult.
[paragraph redacted]
The defendant has an older sister and a number of half-brothers, one of whom is his co-offender, Mr Pursell. The defendant’s parents separated when he was four and his childhood was spent between their homes and shelter accommodation. His childhood was particularly deprived. His father was an alcoholic and violent towards his mother. Child Safety Services were involved from when Mr Cooper was 12 years old, and there were concerns about his development from a young age. In particular, there was noted to be significant delayed speech development and he exhibited paranoia, anxiety, impulsive behaviours, and poor emotional regulation.
The defendant began consuming alcohol from approximately 14 years of age and cannabis from approximately 8 years of age. He has developed a very serious problem of binge-drinking.
He has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Mild Intellectual Disability (full scale IQ of 71–79), depression, and anxiety, as well as a genetic heart condition, non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. When he was 12, he was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder.
The defendant’s education was affected by his mental and physical conditions and instability at home. He struggled at school and refused to attend, and by age 12, his attendance was negligible. It should be noted, however, that he engaged well with his studies at the Ashley Detention School and was able to complete year 12.
His behavioural issues and emotional dysregulation led to difficulties managing his behaviour at home. When he was aged 12 to 13 years of age, his mother sought the assistance of Child Safety Services and separate accommodation was arranged, and a care and protection order was made.
In late 2018, Child Safety Services, as his guardian, determined that his care should be provided by the Brahminy Foundation in the Northern Territory. It should be noted that at that stage, he was aged only 13 and his offending had been very limited. Child Safety Services arranged for the defendant to be relocated to the Northern Territory to stay at a program run by the Foundation. Between the ages of 13 and 14 in late 2018 and early 2020, and for a period of approximately 15 months, he resided at the “Many Colours, One Direction” program run by the Brahminy Foundation. It should be noted that this was not a sentencing outcome, but a care outcome provided by his guardian.
In effect, his care was outsourced to an external and interstate non-government organisation, physically distant from his guardian and oversight. The environment provided to young people was not only far from family and supports; it was, at times, abusive, involving both verbal and physical abuse perpetuated by staff and manipulative tactics akin to bullying or psychological abuse. The program has been criticised by the Commissioner for Children and Amnesty International and has been the subject of review by a parliamentary committee. In 2021, the Tasmanian Government determined to no longer send young people to stay there.
The defendant’s experience at the program was highly detrimental to his well-being and proved to be a major setback. When he returned to Tasmania in early 2020, he found it difficult to readjust to life with family and he commenced offending at a significant rate. Periods of time spent in the community were spent in circumstances of unstable accommodation when he was not receiving a Centrelink benefit, and he was engaging in heavy alcohol consumption and offending to obtain money.
As a result of a psychological assessment conducted when he was remanded at Ashley Youth Detention Centre, an application for the National Disability Insurance Scheme was granted and in February 2022, he was allocated a support coordinator, Ms Jacqueline Hyland, who remains his coordinator.
There was a period of nine months from August 2023 to May 2024 when he was in the community and involved in very limited offending. This period is relied upon as indicative of his potential and capacity for rehabilitation. In this period, he began receiving the benefit of the NDIS package and from the age of 18, in late 2023, he was residing at the Richmond Futures community house in Port Sorell. The housing provides 24-hour support on site. During this nine-month period, he was engaging well with his various supports and abstaining from alcohol and illicit substances to a significant degree.
Unfortunately, he committed further offences in late May 2024, which are yet to be dealt with by the Magistrates Court. He was on bail for that alleged offending when he committed the crime before the Court today of aggravated armed robbery.
His downfall on both occasions was his consumption of alcohol to the extent of heavy binge-drinking. This cycle of heavy alcohol consumption and offending is a lesson he has learnt before.
I have a report from Dr Georgina O’Donnell dated 27 March 2025 which indicates that as an adult, he meets the diagnostic criteria for Anti-Social Personality Disorder with Alcohol Use Disorder. His low intellectual functioning, neuro-diversity, and trauma history are background features. She states that his primary treatment need is for his Alcohol Use Disorder as the strongest causative link to his current offending behaviour. She notes the defendant agrees, which I treat as a positive indication of his insight in relation to the importance of treatment.
I have a report from Ms Jaclyn Hyland, the defendant’s NDIS Support coordinator, which sets out the progress he has made while subject to the package, his ongoing needs, and the extensive supports that he will have on his release pursuant to his approved NDIS package.
Undoubtedly, these extensive supports will enhance his prospects of reform. They include supported accommodation and a mentor with whom he has an established positive rapport, as well as support from his mother and sister.
A report from Community Corrections dated 1 May 2025 identifies the influence of a negative peer group and that, due to his diagnosed conditions, he is vulnerable to coercion by others. The defendant understands that he needs to distance himself from so-called friends who influence him in a negative way. He also understands the importance of alcohol treatment and that, knowing he cannot drink in moderation, he needs to cease all alcohol use.
I take into account that there has been a period of time in the community when he limited his alcohol intake and demonstrated that he can stop offending.
An intensive level of alcohol counselling, therapy, and treatment, such as that offered by the Salvation Army Bridge Program in Ulverstone should be provided, either as a residential program or daily attendance. I understand that Community Corrections and his NDIS team would work together to support your attendance
Mr Cooper, this is a very serious crime, committed against someone you knew, when there was a degree of trust and in circumstances where you were drinking together. You knew very well then that you are someone who cannot consume alcohol because you consume too much, and this leads to risk-taking behaviour that is harmful to yourself and others. Having made the terrible decision to drink, you are fully responsible for your actions.
What you did was not planned but you intended to rob someone you knew, and you intended to do so in circumstances where you were in the presence of associates, the numbers were in your favour, and when there was every likelihood they would become involved, assist you, and produce a weapon. There is a need to reinforce to you that you are fully responsible for your decisions and there is a need to send a strong deterrent to others who might be minded to act in this lawless and violent way.
I take into account your youth and that you are remorseful, and also that your time in custody is your first experience of an adult prison environment, and I allow for the prospect that that will prove to be an effective deterrent. I have taken into account that you indicated a plea of guilty at an early stage and pleaded guilty soon after an issue regarding the factual circumstances was resolved.
It is vital for your rehabilitation that you address your alcohol consumption and remain abstinent and have in place relapse prevention strategies. While the sentence must reflect the gravity of the crime, it will also give you an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with supports and intervention.
Having regard to all the factors that I have identified, the nature of the offending, and your circumstances, I impose the following sentences.
In relation to the crime of aggravated armed robbery, I record a conviction, and I impose a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment backdated to 25 August 2024. I suspend 3 months of that term on condition that he be of good behaviour for 18 months on his release from custody, and that he comply with a Community Correction Order I now impose for the period of 18 months from his release.
In terms of the conditions of that Community Correction Order, he is to be subject to the statutory core conditions and additionally subject to the supervision of a probation officer for that period. He must comply with all the reasonable directions of his probation officer, including directions that he attend alcohol assessment, treatment, and therapy, including daily and/or residential treatment programs and detoxification and relapse programs. He is not to directly or indirectly communicate with or be in the presence of individuals if considered by his probation officer to be a negative influence on his rehabilitation and he must comply with directions of his probation officer in that regard. He must comply with directions of his probation officer that he abstain from alcohol consumption. He must attend Community Corrections within two days of his release from custody at 75 Liverpool Street, Hobart. He must not leave, or remain outside, Tasmania without the permission of a probation officer, and he must notify a probation officer of any change of address or employment before, or within two clear working days after, the change.
The balance of the sentence is 21 months’ imprisonment. He is not to be eligible for parole until he has served the minimum of half of that sentence, being 10 and a half months.
I record a conviction in relation to the breach of bail conditions.