STATE OF TASMANIA v GRANT ANDREW CRAWFORD 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Grant Andrew Crawford, you have pleaded guilty on indictment to one count of causing death by dangerous driving, one count of grievous bodily harm contrary to s172 of the Criminal Code, one count of Criminal Code assault, and one count of unlawfully injuring property. I am also dealing with related summary charges of fail to keep left of dividing line, drive whilst disqualified, two counts of driver involved in crash and failing to stop, two counts of fail to comply with the duties of a driver involved in a crash, possession of stolen property, using a motor vehicle with no premium cover, using an unregistered motor vehicle, and disobey a road closed sign.
All charges arise as a consequence of your driving of a motor vehicle on 15 December 2023. On that day, you were driving a blue Holden station wagon. That vehicle had, in fact, been stolen from an address in Somerset between 30 November and 8 December 2023. The vehicle was not registered, nor was it insured. The vehicle was valued at approximately $5,000.
At the time of driving, you were disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. On 6 September 2022, you had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for offences which included driving offences, and you had been disqualified from driving for a period of two years following your release from custody. You were released from custody on 7 July 2023. It is noteworthy you had only been out of custody for less than six months before you were offending again in a very serious manner.
On 15 December, at approximately 8.35am, you drove the stolen Holden station wagon east along Oonah Road, past the Highclere Roadhouse. The weather was fine and the roads were dry at the time. The stolen Holden station wagon was not in good condition. It had no rear windscreen, nor a rear driver’s side window. You drove along Oonah Road towards a road works zone. The road was closed by large signage and had obstructions blocking the entrance to the area. It was an active work site. The road was under repair, it was not sealed and it was only one lane wide.
Matthew Cohen was delivering a load in the work site area. He was advised by a colleague, via radio, that someone, you, were attempting to drive a vehicle through the work site area from the east. Appreciating the danger associated with that, he attempted to block the road with his truck. You drove the Holden station wagon at high speed through the work site, and stopped in front of the truck, which was blocking your way. You wound the window down and yelled at Mr Cohen to move. You said you were trying to get to Yolla.
Mr Michael Russell was working as a plant operator at the road works site. He had also heard, via radio, that a vehicle was speeding through the work site. He drove his work utility towards where you were in the Holden station wagon. He parked his vehicle and opened the door to exit and speak to you. Before he could exit the driver’s seat, however, you reversed the Holden station wagon quickly and collided with the front of Mr Russell’s vehicle. You then drove forward again, approximately five to ten metres, before again reversing and ramming Mr Russell’s vehicle. Mr Russell’s vehicle was pushed backwards, at a 90-degree angle, towards a steep embankment. Mr Russell was jolted, shocked and scared but he was not physically injured.
Your ramming of Mr Russell’s vehicle with your vehicle constitutes the crime of Criminal Code assault. The front end of Mr Russell’s vehicle was damaged. The rear end of the Holden station wagon was also damaged.
You then drove the Holden station wagon off the roadway and made your way around the truck. You continued through the road works site, smashing through closed gates at the west end of the work site. This constitutes the crime of unlawfully injuring property. You continued to drive towards Yolla. Meanwhile, Mr Cohen had called police and police had been tasked to attend the area.
You continued to travel west on Oonah Road. You were driving at speed. Oonah Road is a windy, country road with minimal side verges. Portions of the road are not sealed and do not have any line markings.
On this day, Mr David Rowbottom was working as a supervisor of a logging operation, with his work site situated at the top of Oonah hill. He was exiting an access road, which intersected with Oonah Road. This portion of the road is unsealed and narrow. He stopped to give way. He saw you travel past the intersection at an estimated speed of 80 to 100 kph. Mr Rowbottom recalls thinking that you were travelling very fast for the conditions. He observed that your vehicle was leaving a large cloud of dust behind it. By the time Mr Rowbottom drove out onto Oonah Road, your vehicle was out of sight. He did not see your vehicle again until he came across the collision site.
You continued to drive along Oonah Road. You turned right onto the Murchison Highway. At this point, Mr Jack Radford was driving a Kenworth prime mover, with a trailer, along the Murchison Highway. It was fully laden with logs. It was a heavy and sizeable vehicle. In the area Mr Radford was driving, Murchison Highway is dual lane and sealed, but narrow and windy with minimal verges. Between the Oonah Road junction and the Takone Road junction, where Mr Radford was travelling, there are seven advisory signs warning of windy roads and sharp curves, and recommending corners be negotiated at between 45 and 55 kph. The posted speed limit is 100 kph.
At approximately 9:00am, Mr Radford was driving his log truck at about 60 kph, given the road conditions. He was 1.3 kilometres into a portion of the highway which had double white centre lines. You appeared suddenly behind Mr Radford’s log truck and overtook it. In undertaking this manoeuvre, you crossed double white lines. You then stayed in the wrong lane for a period as you were approaching a bend in the road. This manoeuvre was captured by the log truck’s dash camera. I have seen that footage. Calculations taken from the footage established that, at this point, you were travelling at 120 kph. As you approached the corner, your vision was entirely obscured. You simply could not have seen if any traffic was approaching from the opposite direction. It is pure luck that there was not a collision at this point.
You continued to travel along Murchison Highway. Calculations undertaken from footage obtained from CCTV cameras in the area, establish that you were travelling at a speed of approximately 96.8 kph. It is estimated that your average speed from overtaking the log truck to the point of collision, was 98.7 kph.
Around this time, Mr Ross Hughes was working, mowing lawns, at a residence at 1809 Murchison Highway. He had parked his Nissan Navara with a trailer attached, opposite the residence in an open turnout area. After completing his tasks, he loaded his ride-on lawn mower onto the trailer. He pulled out to drive away. As he did so, he checked there were no vehicles approaching. Looking towards the direction from which you were travelling, there is 550 metres of roadway visible. He did not see your vehicle at all. He pulled out onto the highway, heading towards Yolla. He accelerated and changed up to fifth gear. He had travelled 191.4 metres when the rear driver’s side of his trailer was struck by the vehicle you were driving. The front passenger side of your vehicle impacted the rear right corner of the trailer at a point where you were 53cm over the centre line, despite the fact that in this area there were double white centre lines. You hit his trailer with significant force. The impact tore the front passenger side quarter fender from your vehicle, and it became embedded in the trailer, causing the trailer wheels to lock. The trailer was pushed forward into the rear of the Nissan and the tow hitch snapped. The trailer was held only by the safety chain. Despite Mr Hughes’ best endeavours to maintain control of the vehicle, he was unable to do so. The vehicle rotated clockwise, sliding in a northerly direction, and ultimately the trailer flipped.
Simultaneously, a group of ten motorcyclists, who were friends from Malaysia and had been touring Tasmania since 11 December, were travelling south on the Murchison Highway. They were travelling at approximately 70 kph. They were all wearing appropriate protective clothing and helmets. Mr Nagapan was leading the group of motorcyclists. He passed Mr Hughes’ vehicle. He then observed you travelling at high speed as you passed him. In his rear-view mirror, he saw your Holden station wagon cross onto the wrong side of the road and clip Mr Hughes’ trailer. As you continued on the wrong side of the road, you collided with a motorcycle that was being ridden by a Mr Kuppusami. Mr Kuppusami was thrown from his motorcycle and propelled into the air. Mr Nagapan immediately stopped and went back to help. A Mr Rammon was also riding in the group. He also saw you hit the rear of Mr Hughes’ trailer and then move into the oncoming lane and collide with his friends. He saw them fly off their bikes and into the air for some distance before they landed on the road. As the vehicle driven by Mr Hughes slid out of control, it struck a motorcycle being ridden by a Mr Rajakumar. Mr Rajakumar was thrown from his motorcycle, struck the bonnet of the Nissan Nivara and was then thrown into the air, landing in the north bound lane. The criminal responsibility for that act rests entirely with you and Mr Hughes bears no blame whatsoever. You drove your motor vehicle in a dangerous manner, causing it to strike Mr Hughes’ trailer, setting off a sequence of events that was beyond his control. It was you who made significant omissions in the way in which you drove and controlled your motor vehicle, and it was you who caused the grievous bodily harm Mr Rajakumar suffered.
After you had struck Mr Hughes’ trailer, you lost control of your vehicle. Your vehicle commenced rotating in a counterclockwise direction. It briefly contacted the Navara and then struck the motorcycle being ridden by Mr Kuppusami. The impact threw the deceased’s motorcycle in a northerly direction, and the deceased was thrown into the north bound lane. Mr Kuppusami died from multiple severe blunt trauma injuries, including significant internal bleeding and damage to his organs. The extent of the injuries were significant, and despite paramedic efforts, Mr Kuppusami died at the scene.
Mr Rajakumar sustained significant injuries also. He had a haematoma to the scalp in the left parietal region, a fracture to his left, fourth rib and a displaced second rib. His left arm was dislocated and had multiple fractures involving the head of the radius, with dislocation of the elbow joint. There was a transverse fracture of the mid-shaft of the radius and ulnar, with wide separation of the fragments. In the left hand, his wrist was dislocated and his left hand had numerous fractures. His right hand also had a significant number of fractures. His left leg had a transverse fracture of the mid-femur and marked displacement of the distal femur. Mr Rajakumar was required to undergo several operations, including the insertion of plates and screws in the left forearm, elbow, left femur and left hand. He also required a skin graft for his left forearm.
Mr Rajakumar was in hospital until 8 January 2024. Upon discharge, his leg could only weight bear the equivalent of a cup of tea for about four weeks. His left arm was unable to weight bear for six weeks. He required further surgical management of his left arm and hand. He required ongoing management of his skin graft and donor sites. Upon return to Malaysia, he required further medical intervention.
After colliding with Mr Kuppusami’s motorcycle, your vehicle continued to rotate counterclockwise and ultimately slid into vegetation on the grass verge of the south bound lane, facing north. Save for a minor cut to your face, you were not injured. After the vehicle came to a stop, you fled the scene. You did not check on the welfare of anyone who had been involved in the collision, or seek to render any assistance to any of the persons at the collision scene. You did not contact emergency services to request the attendance of an ambulance. You had a mobile phone. You could have done so. Given you had collided with a motorcyclist, at speed, you must have appreciated it was likely significant injuries had been occasioned. You showed no care for anyone but yourself. You were interested only in fleeing the scene to avoid detection. To run off without offering any assistance, is morally reprehensible, and suggests reprobate characteristics within you.
All vehicles involved in the collision were heavily damaged, indicative of the amount of force involved in the collision. The motorcycle driven by Mr Kuppusami had its front tyre and fuel tank torn off, and the front headlight and forks were destroyed. The motorcycle driven by Mr Rajakumar had extensive damage to its front, including the instrument cluster and headlight being destroyed, the handlebars were bent, mirrors were torn off and the front forks were bent backwards. Mr Hughes’ vehicle had various dents and paint transfer. The trailer was destroyed. The Holden station wagon had significant front-end impact. The front left panel was torn off, the left front door was buckled, the front bumper was torn off, the front left headlight was missing and the windscreen was cracked. The extent of the damage to the vehicles is indicative of the speed at which you were travelling when you collided with the trailer.
On 18 December 2023, Tasmania Police received information that you were going to present yourself to the Burnie Police Station. Before that occurred, you were arrested at Marine Terrace on the same date. You have remained in custody since that date. You originally entered pleas of not guilty to the charges. The matter proceeded through preliminary proceedings. The matter was listed for trial in the fourth sittings of this year. The indictment contained a charge of manslaughter, (which would have had an alternative charge of causing death by dangerous driving left to the jury), and otherwise alleged the same crimes to which you have now pleaded guilty. The trial could not proceed in the fourth sittings because of issues pertaining to witnesses living in Malaysia. On 5 May 2026, the State offered to accept a plea of guilty to the crime of causing death by dangerous driving in satisfaction of the manslaughter charge on the indictment. This offer was rejected by you, and the matter was readied for trial. It was due to commence on 27 July 2026. On 14 July 2026, you indicated that you would enter the pleas of guilty for which you are now to be sentenced.
I do not consider the pleas of guilty to be reflective of remorse. Your behaviour in fleeing the scene after the collision, is entirely inconsistent with you having any remorse for your conduct. The pleas reflect little more than a reluctant acceptance of the inevitable. The case against you was a very strong one. Witnesses clearly identified that there was only one person present in the vehicle, and forensic analysis revealed DNA consistent with you being the driver of the vehicle. Your mobile phone was found in the vehicle. I do accept there remains a utilitarian benefit associated with your plea of guilty. The trial would have been a difficult one for a jury to sit upon given the distressing nature of some of the material. There were also some complexities associated with witnesses attending to give evidence from Malaysia. Your plea of guilty has alleviated those practical difficulties, and should attract some weight in the sentencing exercise, although in my view, it is not of great value in the sentencing process.
The consequences of your dangerous driving have been horrific and far reaching. I have received victim impact statements from Ms Devi, the wife of Mr Kuppusami; from Mr Radjakumar; from Mr Michael Russell; and from Mr Ross Hughes. They all eloquently and compellingly outline the significant deleterious affects they have suffered because of your dangerous driving.
Ms Devi has requested that I read her impact statement to myself. I therefore will not go into great detail. It is sufficient to say that Mr Kuppusami was obviously a much-loved husband and father. His presence is missed every day. The family’s life is now filled with an unbearable sense of loss and constant sadness. The emotional and financial turmoil experienced by Ms Devi has been significant and is likely to be life long.
Mr Rajakumar still suffers constant pain because of his injuries. He cannot stand for extended periods. He cannot walk properly. He is unable to ride a motorcycle, an activity which previously brought him much joy. His injured hand is not fully operational. He struggles to carry out normal, everyday tasks. It is likely he will require further surgery into the future. He has suffered physically, emotionally and financially. He is unable to undertake his previous employment. He is constantly anxious, stressed and worried. He requires assistance with many daily activities, including self-care, driving and household chores. He has found this a very difficult and humiliating experience. He previously prided himself on his independence and ability to care for, and provide for his family. He feels great guilt that he is no longer able to do so. His children have suffered as a consequence of his injuries. He is now unable to actively participate in many activities he previously enjoyed with them. Because he has been unable to work, his family has experienced considerable financial hardship.
Mr Russell speaks of the fear he felt when you rammed his vehicle. He notes that if you had impacted the vehicle on a different angle, his vehicle may well have rolled down the nearby steep embankment. He finds himself thinking about this and it is most unsettling. He is anxious and apprehensive. He continues to work in traffic management. He now feels very vulnerable at work sites. He found being briefed in anticipation of a trial difficult and disquieting.
Mr Ross Hughes has also been significantly impacted by his involvement in this matter. Since the collision, he has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He experiences flashbacks, disturbed sleep and emotional dysregulation. He is hyper vigilant and finds himself constantly anxious. He has experienced feelings of guilt and worthlessness. His relationships with his family have been impacted. He has also experienced significant financial hardship. He had been forced to change his employment. His trailer and lawn mowing equipment was destroyed in the collision, and his vehicle was damaged. There was a gap in his insurance cover. He has also experienced ongoing medical costs associated with obtaining psychological assistance. Mr Hughes was an avid motorcyclist and enjoyed that pastime with his wife. He can no longer bring himself to ride a motorcycle. He also found the anticipation of an upcoming trial very difficult to deal with. The psychological impact for Mr Hughes has been life changing and is likely to be long term.
You are 55 years of age. You have an appalling record of prior criminal offending, which commenced when you were a youth. In 1989, when you were aged 18, you committed the crimes of aggravated assault and drive in a manner dangerous to the public. You were sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, the last three months of which was conditionally suspended. In terms of other offences involving violence, you have also been convicted of criminal code assault, four counts of common assault, and you have several prior convictions for breaching police family violence orders. You also have a significant history of prior offending in respect to matters of dishonesty. You have 40 convictions for stealing offences, 37 convictions for obtaining goods by false pretences, and several convictions for aggravated burglary or attempted burglary. You have six prior convictions for injuring property and three prior convictions for destroying property.
In terms of your prior convictions for driving offences, they are simply dreadful. You have 25 prior convictions for driving whilst disqualified, one prior conviction for dangerous driving, 14 prior convictions for unlicensed driving and nine prior convictions for breaching the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act in various ways. You also have a prior conviction for evade police (aggravated circumstances), and numerous traffic infringement matters, many of them involving speeding at excessive speeds. Additionally, you have prior convictions for offences contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Bail Act and the Firearms Act.
The appalling attitude you have towards obeying driving laws is evidenced by this. If one tallies up the disqualification periods that have been imposed upon you as part of sentencing orders, you have been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for over 20 years (with a small portion of those disqualification periods ordered to be served concurrently). This equates to you having been disqualified for over 50% of the time in which you have been eligible to hold a driver’s licence. Given the cavalier attitude you have displayed towards driving laws, it was almost inevitable that your driving would one day bring about tragic consequences, such as has occurred here. In my view, the community needs protection from you and your attitude.
Previous sentencing comments from this Court describe you as a persistent offender. It would have to be said there is little evidence of that persistency abating. Over the years, you have been given many opportunities by way of sentencing orders directed at encouraging your rehabilitation. You have failed to take up any of the opportunities offered to you. In my view, the likelihood of you changing your attitude of lawlessness is slight. Rehabilitation does not attract much weight in this sentencing exercise.
It is trite to say you are not to be re-sentenced for your record of prior convictions, but the nature and extent of them clearly indicates that specific deterrence and community protection are important sentencing considerations. Your record weighs against any leniency being extended to you in sentencing.
By way of your personal circumstances, you are a single man. There are no physical or mental health conditions which are relevant to sentence. Your long-term partner died after a difficult battle with cancer several years ago. You grew up in a supportive family. You continue to have a good relationship with your mother and some of your siblings. One of your brothers died in July this year. You were unable to attend the funeral because you were on remand and not a sentenced prisoner. That was a difficult time for you. Your brother had also battled cancer, and that brought back many difficult memories associated with your partner’s battle.
I am told you were sexually assaulted by someone you describe as “an authoritarian figure” towards the end of your primary school years. You found the incident distressing and shortly thereafter, you commenced using illicit substances and began to, to use your words, “rebel against authority”. Your illicit substance use commenced with cannabis, but as is so often the case, quickly escalated to the use of other illicit drugs such as methylamphetamine. When in the community, your drug use has never really ceased. I am told the excessive use of both drugs and alcohol has been an ongoing difficulty. You say that in the past you have not been prepared to acknowledge the adverse impact your excessive drug and alcohol use has had upon you, but you now recognise it has ruined your life.
Your life has been a fairly constant cycle of substance abuse, offending and incarceration. On occasions, you have been able to hold down employment. You are a qualified roof plumber, and when not in custody have worked in that industry and are considered a hard worker. I take into account that much of the time that you have spent in custody has been subject to lengthy periods of lockdown, thereby making incarceration particularly onerous.
Your criminal conduct was objectively very serious. The total journey you travelled prior to the collision was approximately 38.5 kilometres. This was not momentary inattention but a prolonged course of dangerous driving. Your journey involved high speeds at times, and you ignored warnings. You disregarded signage indicating you were not to enter into a road works area. You nevertheless proceeded through that area, putting the road workers at risk. When Mr Russell tried to stop your journey, you reacted violently and rammed his vehicle on two occasions. It is most fortunate that his vehicle did not roll down a steep embankment, and that he was not injured. I pause to note using your vehicle as a weapon in this violent manner when Mr Russell was simply trying to ensure the safety of the road workers in the area, by itself, warrants imprisonment. You ignored the warnings of Mr Russell and the other road workers who were encouraging you to stop, and instead proceeded to drive through a set of gates and then drive in a dangerous manner on a rural road, which was narrow and winding. You overtook when it was unsafe to do so. Your speed, and/or inadequate attention, was such that when you came upon Mr Hughes’ vehicle and trailer, you could not slow or manoeuvre your vehicle to avoid a collision. Although this was a rural road, the presence of other vehicles on the road was not unusual or unexpected. Whilst there is no evidence that you were affected by illicit drugs at the time of driving, given what I have been told about your chronic drug use and given the description provided by witnesses of your presentation, I suspect it is highly likely that you were under the influence of illicit drugs whilst you were driving. Of course, because you fled the scene and did not surrender yourself for several days, alcohol and drug testing was not able to be conducted.
The manner of your driving put a number of people at risk and tragically that risk manifested itself in the death of Mr Kuppusami and grievous injury to Mr Rajakumar. It cannot be overlooked that you should not have been driving at all, given you were disqualified. Moreover, you had only been released from custody a matter of months earlier after serving a sentence for, amongst other things, driving offences. That sentence clearly had little to no impact upon you as within a very short time, you were driving a stolen motor vehicle that was in a poor condition, in a blatantly dangerous manner.
Of course, no sentence can undo the great harm you have caused, but the sentence needs to reflect the extent and impact of the terrible and irreversible harm you have caused. I must be minded to sentences imposed for similar crimes, whilst recognising that sentences for crimes of this nature have increased in more recent years, reflecting the community’s condemnation of crimes causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving. In my view, this case can only be described as a very bad example of a crime of this nature, committed by a person who has for many years shown contempt for the laws of this State, and a disregard for the safety and welfare of other road users. A very significant sentence is required.
I make the following orders. You are convicted of all crimes and offences to which you have pleaded guilty. In respect to the summary offences, with the exception of the drive whilst disqualified offence, I make no further order. On the indictment and the offence of drive whilst disqualified, I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of nine years, commencing 18 December 2023. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served six years of that sentence of imprisonment. You are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of six years following your release from custody. By then, you will be nearing 65 years of age. You may need a licence and hopefully your attitude may have changed, and it will be safe to allow you to drive on our roads.
I make a compensation order in favour of Civilscape Contracting Tasmania in an amount to be assessed.