STATE OF TASMANIA v BRENDON MATTHEW JOHN FARNELL ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 27 SEPTEMBER 2019
The defendant, Brendon Matthew John Farnell aged 22 has pleaded guilty to two counts of assault on indictment and to a charge of common assault on complaint no 11284/2018. He has also pleaded guilty to three charges on complaint no 11285/2018, namely, driving under the influence and within that offence, one charge of exceeding .05% (.109) and one charge of driving as a provisional driver with alcohol in his body.
The defendant and the complainant Hannah Jade Joss aged 23 were in a significant relationship for approximately 6 years. They had lived together for two years in a unit at Midway Point. Suzanne Rigby and Garry Boettger both aged 58 lived next door to the defendant.
In early-mid October 2018, the complainant ended the relationship. She moved out of their unit and was staying with her parents. The defendant remained residing at the unit. They maintained contact after the relationship ended. The defendant was having difficulty in accepting that the relationship was over.
During the week of 15-21 October 2018, the complainant met with the defendant for the purpose of discussing their relationship. They met at their unit. The defendant became angry, and the defendant accused the complainant of seeing other people. During this argument, the defendant punched the front of the microwave, causing damage to the microwave and injury to his hand. This is put by the Crown as context only and the defendant’s counsel informed me this was done out of the presence and sight of any other person.
Indictment & complaint 11284/18 (count 3)
On the afternoon of 29 October 2018, the complainant met up with the defendant at their unit. They spent the afternoon together and at approximately 6pm, they went to have dinner at the Midway Point Tavern. During the course of dinner, the complainant consumed two ciders and the defendant consumed two jugs of beer.
After dinner, the complainant and the defendant returned to their unit. They were sitting in the lounge room when the complainant left the room to go to the bathroom. Upon her return, she saw the defendant attempting to gain access to her mobile phone. The complainant refused to give him the passcode.
The complainant grabbed her phone back from the defendant. In response, the defendant knocked the phone out of the complainant’s hand. It hit the ground and slid under the bed. As the complainant leaned down to retrieve her phone, the defendant grabbed her by the right shoulder. The complainant picked up the phone, stood up, and told the defendant that she wanted him to get away from her and he needed to leave because he was scaring her. The defendant proceeded to get closer to the complainant and said, “You’re not listening to me, look what you’re making me do”. At that point the complainant sat down on the bed. She then tried to get up and pass by the defendant to leave the room when he climbed on the bed and grabbed hold of her. The complainant started to scream for help.
When the complainant started screaming, the defendant told her to “shoosh”. He then punched the complainant to her face. The defendant then continued to repeatedly punch the complainant to the face and head (Indictment – count 1) until a neighbour, Suzanne Rigby, intervened.
Ms Rigby had been outside having a cigarette when she heard the defendant’s voice and the complainant’s screaming. Rigby went inside and told her partner, Mr Boettger, who told her to stay out of it. When she returned outside and the screams became worse, Ms Rigby went next door. After there was no reply at the front door, she gained entry to the defendant’s unit through the unlocked front door.
When Rigby entered the bedroom, she saw the defendant on top of the complainant on the bed. The complainant was on her side with her face in a pillow. She was crying. Ms Rigby said to the defendant, “look what’s going on, the whole neighbourhood can hear you”. The defendant replied, “yes, I know, but she won’t give me the answers, she won’t talk to me.”
Rigby observed blood on the complainant’s face and said to the defendant, “Jesus Christ what the hell have you done to her?” The defendant then started approaching Rigby, saying he “didn’t do anything”. At this time, the defendant struck her to her face. Ms Rigby was knocked to the floor flat on her back. The defendant then stood over Rigby and continually punched her with a closed fist to her face. The defendant punched Rigby approximately 8-12 times, including striking her with a clock radio to her head (Indictment – count 2).
The complainant tried to stop the defendant from punching Ms Rigby by pulling the back of his hooded jumper. This caused the defendant to turn around and punch the complainant to the face, causing her to fall over. The defendant returned to punching Ms Rigby. At one point, Ms Rigby pretended to be unconscious in the hope that the defendant would stop. He did not.
The complainant got up and ran outside. She saw Mr Boettger who asked her what was going on and what happened. She had blood on her face and on the front of her t-shirt.
The complainant was met by other neighbours who were out on their front lawn. She went inside with them. Mr Boettger continued to the defendant’s unit. At the front door, Mr Boettger met the defendant .He could see Ms Rigby crawling towards the front door. The defendant punched Boettger to the face and to the ribs (complaint 11284/18 – count 3).
The defendant then ran outside and into his car. He left in his car at speed and Mr Boettger called 000.
Complaint 11285/18
At approximately 8:30pm residents of Penna Road, Midway Point, heard screeching tyres and the sound of a car crashing into something. The residents observed a white Commodore ute stopped on Penna Road. The vehicle was positioned on the street at a perpendicular angle to the street. The vehicle “dropped the clutch” and swung back onto the correct side of the road and drove off in the Penna direction.
The residents called the police. The residents also located a yellow cautionary arrow road sign that had been severed at the base and was lying on the road.
At approximately 8:30pm, police were tasked to attend a single vehicle crash on Penna Road, Midway Point. Upon arrival, police observed a white Commodore ute on fire in a paddock adjacent to 491 Penna Road. Near the vehicle was the defendant . He was bleeding and appeared dazed and intoxicated (charge 1).
The defendant was conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital. The defendant was treated for his injuries and was subject to a blood test at 10:31pm on 29 October 2018. The defendant’s sample was subsequently forensically analysed and shown to contain 0.109 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (charge 2).
As at 29 October 2018, the defendant was the holder of a provisional driver’s licence (charge 3).
At 5:45pm on 6 November 2018, the defendant participated in an electronically recorded interview with police. The interview was 35 minutes and 26 seconds in duration. Under caution he made the following comments:
“He was confused by the complainant’s decision to end their relationship. He thought that her reason wasn’t good enough, that there was something more that she was being secretive about.
He thinks the argument was over him gaining access to the complainant’s phone.
He cannot remember what was said. He has no idea why it turned physical. After the argument, all he remembers is waking up in the ambulance. The rest is blank, perhaps because of the car accident and because he was drinking.
He does not recall being in the car. He only recalls where he drove to and where crash occurred from what he has since been told.
He hasn’t been suffering mental health issues other than feeling depressed after the relationship ended. He admits he was probably jealous.
He has no idea why it happened and he wishes he hadn’t done it.
He concedes that during his relationship with the complainant, he has previously taken issue with certain people who she had contact with.
He is not sure what came over him.
As a result of the accident he had a blood clot in the back of his neck, a torn blood vessel in his neck, and bruises and cuts all over. He was concussed.
The defendant says he is sorry. The last thing he wanted to do was to hurt anybody. He loves the complainant, he liked Boettger and Rigby. He had no dramas with Boettger or Rigby at all.”
At the conclusion of the interview the defendant was charged via summons. The defendant has no prior convictions. I have seen victim impact statements from all three of the victims.
Ms Joss suffered one deep laceration above her left eyebrow which required six stitches; a deep laceration on her right eyelid which required glue and wound closure strips; a fat-lip; swelling and bruising to my face and neck; sore jaw; bruised and sore arm, and constant severe headaches for the following weeks. Although her wounds are healed, she now has two scars on her face which is a constant fearful reminder of what happened. She now suffers from a clinically confirmed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and from mild depression, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia and suicidal thoughts. None of which she had experienced before. In addition, knowing that the defendant and his family are now living a two minute drive away from where she lives has had a huge impact on her, and her mental health was deteriorating. Her panic attacks have become more frequent. She constantly feels anxious and jumpy. She finds herself always double checking the locks on the doors and windows. She no longer felt safe to walk around in her own suburb or go to her local shop in case she sees the defendant. In that regard I do note that it was explained to me that on a recent occasion the two had encountered each other at Mr Farnell’s work without incident.
Ms Rigby required stitches in her head and suffered a broken nose. She still has a scar on her head which is a continual reminder to her of what happened. She had facial bruising which took weeks to heal. She still can’t breathe through her left nostril properly and her nose is still sore and crooked. She has a chipped front tooth and one of her back teeth is loose. She had a trauma history, and this event has set her back to where she was before she moved to Tasmania 7 years ago to escape family violence. She was starting to get my life back together and then this happened to her.
Mr Boettger doesn’t leave his house any more. He can’t be around people. He thought he could handle what had happened but he turned to alcohol. He left his job due to anxiety and stress. He used to work as a salesman and had to go to 8-10 houses a day. He left an $80K a year job because his mental health deteriorated. He is now on Newstart. He saw the defendant once when he was out shopping. When he saw him he froze and had to run out of the supermarket. It was confronted by seeing him. What happened has shattered his life. He attends drug and alcohol counselling and sees his GP regularly. He has been seeing a counsellor but it doesn’t seem to help him. He says that he was “a pretty normal guy before this happened but now he is a recluse.”
I have seen photographs of the injuries to all three complainants – this was a series of serious assaults, and they were all sustained, and they were viscious. The defendant had clearly lost all self-control. A weapon was used in the form of a clock, and the offence against the complainant Joss was a family violence offence, which I record as such.
The defendant resides with parents but also spends some nights with his elderly grandparents for whom he cares. He has been employed from age 20 and in responsible full time employment and has been a contributing member of society.
His plea of guilty was signified on 18 April before his first appearance in the Supreme Court. He lacks any recollection of the events and that caused the delay in accepting the Crown facts which he now does. He was notwithstanding his lack of memory, fully co-operative with police
Rehabilitation of the defendant as a young offender is a matter of high public interest and is an important factor in sentencing in this case.
The defendant is extremely remorseful and is shocked at what he has done. The offence is singularly out of character. He is attending counselling sessions at the Hobart City Mission Personal and Family Counselling Service. He has attended a number of appointments at that service this year. His counsellor, Ms Buckley, outlines in a letter dated 1 August 2019 that the defendant has presented as demonstrating feelings of deep remorse and continued disbelief regarding his actions. He has continued to work through the issues surrounding the incident, and appears to be deeply affected and quite shocked after the actions during the incident were revealed to him.
Ms Buckley confirms that the defendant appears to have little memory of the incident, but is taking full responsibility for his actions. He sees his general practitioner, Dr Sexton, at the Clarence Clinic. He was not diagnosed with any mental health issues prior to the incident, however since the incident he has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. And he is medicated daily for those conditions. He intends to continue with that rehabilitation attending both of those services.
The defendant who had not previously offended in any way, because of his possessive attitude to his former partner and his selfish refusal to accept that their relationship was over, has shattered the lives of three people.
The community will not stand for this brutal behaviour towards women and blameless strangers. Community expectations are now that this sort of vicious and cowardly behaviour be visited with harsh punishment to act as a deterrent to the defendant and other likeminded men, and to denounce this all too common behaviour and vindicate the victims. A custodial sentence is clearly called for.
The defendant has been assessed as suitable for home detention.
The defendant is convicted of all offences to which he has pleaded guilty. He is sentenced to 18 months’ home detention from today. The order I make includes all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD(1) of Pt 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997, including s 42AD(1)(g) as to electronic monitoring.
Mr Farnell, in addition to those core conditions I impose the following conditions be included in the Order:
- You must, during the operational period of the order, remain at the address assessed as suitable at all times unless approved by a probation officer.
- Immediately upon your release from Court, you must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction onto this order.
- You must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times.
- You must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer.
- You must not take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
- Any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;
- Any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.
- You must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol.
- You are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 2 years from today.