STATE OF TASMANIA v STUART ALEXANDER FERGUSON
and TY FERGUSON 16 SEPTEMBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Stuart Ferguson and Ty Ferguson, each of you have pleaded guilty to the crimes of aggravated burglary and three counts of Criminal Code assault. The charges arise out of a home invasion that you were involved in on 7 June 2025. Two other people were also involved in that incident, namely Kaleb Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage. They will be sentenced on a separate date.
Stuart Ferguson, you are the father of Ty Ferguson and Kaleb Ferguson. Matthew Anderson Savage is a family friend. The background to these crimes is that on the evening of 7 June 2025, the complainants, Nathan Hankin and Kobe Hankin, who are father and son, attended a 21st birthday party at Guilford Crescent in Gagebrook. At the time, Kaleb Ferguson lived at that residence with his partner Tayla Radford. The party was to celebrate Taylor Radford’s 21st birthday. Taylor Radford is Kobe Hankin’s cousin. Kaleb Ferguson’s stepmother, who is Stuart Ferguson’s partner, a Ms Brooke Sproule, was also at the party.
During the evening, Kaleb Ferguson was involved in an incident with Kobe Hankin’s aunt. This led to a physical altercation occurring between Kobe Hankin and Kaleb Ferguson which left Kaleb Ferguson with some injuries to his face. Ms Sproule saw the altercation between Kobe Hankin and Kaleb Ferguson. She apparently went to intervene but was prevented from doing so by a Larry Gunn. During this incident, Ms Sproule was assaulted, which resulted in her becoming quite distressed and experiencing breathing difficulties.
Police were called to Guilford Crescent because of the altercations that were occurring.
Mr Stuart Ferguson, who was not at the party, received some information about the altercations that had occurred and attended at Guilford Crescent with Ty Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage. By the time that trio attended, the police were present. Police prevented Stuart Ferguson, Ty Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage from entering past the driveway of the property. The interaction between police and the three defendants was recorded on body worn camera. Stuart Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage were observed to be in an emotionally heightened state and agitated. Stuart Ferguson repeatedly said, “where is he?” in reference to Kobe Hankin.
The three were sent from the Guilford Crescent property by police. Apparently not content with leaving matters for police to sort out, at approximately 8:15pm, Stuart Ferguson, Ty Ferguson, Kaleb Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage all drove in a motor vehicle to the complainants’ property at [address redacted]. The two complainants were, by that time, back at their home and were present there with Marita Hankin, Nathan Hankin’s wife, and Elyse Hankin, their 16-year-old daughter.
When the defendants arrived at the Hankin property, Stuart Ferguson was in possession of a handgun, which was secured in the back of his trouser waistband, and Ty Ferguson was armed with a spanner. All four defendants approached the door. Stuart Ferguson and Matthew Anderson Savage repeatedly kicked the front door, seeking to gain entry. Whilst this was occurring, they were yelling words to the effect of, “youse are done now, youse are gone”. At one point, Stuart Ferguson reached up and broke the external CCTV surveillance camera from its location above the front door and threw it to the ground.
Having heard the defendants arrive, Kobe Hankin retrieved a knife from a kitchen cupboard and then ensured his mother and sister had left the house. Meanwhile, one of the defendants smashed a glass window panel next to the front door, reached in and opened the door and entered the premises. Stuart Ferguson approached Nathan Hankin, screaming “where is he, where is he”. By this point, Nathan Hankin had armed himself with a piece of wood and he hit Stuart Ferguson in an endeavour to defend himself. Nathan Hankin and Kobe Hankin were yelling for the defendants to get out of their house.
Stuart Ferguson asked Ty Ferguson to pass him the spanner. Ty Ferguson did so. Stuart Ferguson walked towards Nathan Hankin, while holding the spanner, and swung it towards him. It did not connect with Nathan Hankin but hit the hallway wall, causing a hole. This constitutes the first count of assault. The defendants continued yelling, “where is he, I’ll smash his fucking head in”. One of the defendants threw an object, believed to be a porcelain owl ornament, at Nathan Hankin. It hit him on the lower lip, causing it to bleed. This constitutes the second count of assault.
The Hankins continued to ask the defendants to leave the property. Mr Nathan Hankin used a piece of wood in an attempt to strike the defendants and encourage their departure from the property. Kobe Hankin approached the group whilst holding the knife and screamed at them to get out. One of the accused threw an object, believed to be a torch, at Kobe Hankin which struck him to the left side of the head, resulting in a laceration. This constitutes the third count of assault. Both Kobe Hankin and Nathan Hankin were persistent in screaming at the defendants to get out.
Eventually, the defendants did back out of the residence, and the Hankins were able to close the front door. Once outside the residence, Stuart Ferguson took the handgun from the rear of his trouser waistband and pointed it directly at the front door, whilst saying, “I’m talking to you, I’m going to shoot you, get the fuck out here”. The other defendants picked up plants and garden ornaments and threw them at the front of the residence. All four defendants then left the residence in their vehicle.
The incident was captured on CCTV footage. I have watched it. It is obvious that the Hankins were desperate to have the defendants leave the property. They repeatedly requested that they do so. The defendants were aggressive, violent and seemingly determined to inflict harm. I suspect it was only because the Hankins had armed themselves with weapons to protect themselves, that the defendants did not inflict further violence upon them.
After the incident, Kobe Hankin was taken by ambulance to the Royal Hobart Hospital. The laceration to the side of his head was sutured. It was three centimetres in length.
On Monday, 9 June, Kaleb Ferguson sent a Facebook message to Nathan Hankin, which was threatening and suggested further violence was to be offered to the Hankins. The content of the message is inconsistent with any claim of remorse, although it is not clear whether the sending of that message was known by these two defendants. During the incident, the defendants caused approximately $2,300 damage to the Hankins’ house and chattels.
These crimes have had a terrible impact upon the Hankin family. After the incident, they were so scared that they were forced to move residence. I have received a victim impact statement from the family. Their sense of safety and security has been impacted. Each member of the family has experienced significant psychological harm. They suffer with flashbacks, anxiety, disturbed sleep, panic attacks, hyper vigilance and anxiety. Instead of feeling safe and secure in their home, they are constantly on edge and feel apprehensive and vulnerable. Members of the family have had to seek professional assistance to deal with the psychological harm occasioned by the crimes. Such consequences are entirely consistent with what one would expect from criminal conduct of this nature. Home invasions, for the purpose of perpetrating violence, are to be regarded as extremely serious. As has been evidenced here, such criminal conduct almost inevitably causes psychological harm and undermines the feeling of security that individuals are entitled to enjoy within their own homes.
Stuart Ferguson, you are 47 years of age. You have a terrible history of prior criminal offending. Your offending commenced when you were 18 and has continued on a reasonably consistent basis since. You have many prior convictions for matters of dishonesty and driving offences. Of note, in 2008, you were convicted by this Court for the crimes of aggravated burglary, stealing and injuring property, and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. In 2016, you were convicted of the crime of aggravated armed robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months. You were described then as a “repeat offender without remorse”. Little has changed.
Since your conviction for aggravated armed robbery, you have gone on to commit further offences of dishonesty. In 2021, you were sentenced by this Court for the crimes of aggravated burglary, stealing and unlawfully injuring property. You were sentenced to a Drug Treatment Order, with a custodial component of two years. You subsequently breached the Drug Treatment Order by committing several further offences. The Drug Treatment Order was cancelled on 16 March 2023, and the 12 month period of imprisonment was activated.
It would have to be said that your record of prior convictions is demonstrative of a general attitude of lawlessness. Specific deterrence is a weighty sentencing consideration. There is very little that can be said which mitigates your conduct. I am told you became involved in this matter because you were concerned about what had occurred at the party. Of course, it must have been obvious to you when you attended at Guilford Crescent, that police were there and the situation was in hand. There was simply no reason, other than your desire to extract retribution, for you to attend at the Hankin residence. I am told that you are eager to return to the community so that you can support your partner, who has some health issues, and assist in raising your daughter.
Ty Ferguson, you are 27 years of age. You, too, have a very poor record of prior criminal offending. Your offending commenced when you were a youth and it has continued largely unabated until you were remanded in custody following this incident. You have many prior convictions for driving offences, matters of dishonesty, matters of violence, bail offences, and offences committed against police.
In May 2020, you were sentenced by this Court for the crime of make false threat of danger. You were sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, the execution of which was wholly suspended. Then, in July 2021, you were convicted in this Court for the crimes of aggravated burglary, stealing and unlawfully injure property. You were sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, again the execution of which was wholly suspended. In the Magistrates Court in September 2022, you were placed on a Drug Treatment Order, with a custodial component of ten months. All three of those sentencing orders were subsequently breached by further offending and activated to varying extents.
I am told you became involved in this matter at the behest of your father. You learnt of the altercations that had occurred at Guilford Crescent. You attended there and received advice that your brother, Kaleb, was fine. You then left and returned to your home. Shortly thereafter, your father rang you and asked you to go with him to the complainant’s home in Gallahar Place. You did so. Whilst I accept that you were perhaps not as intricately involved in the violence as your father, it matters not. You joined in a plan to violently invade the home of the complainants, late at night, in circumstances where both you and your father were armed with weapons. It was blatantly obvious that violence was to be inflicted and harm would be caused. There is no basis to distinguish between the criminal responsibility of each of you.
I am told that drug use has been a difficulty for you for much of your adult life. In 2015, your then girlfriend gave birth to a baby boy. She was unable to raise the child, and you took on parenting obligations. You and your son live with your mother when you are not in custody. I am told that you are motivated to change and stay out of custody so that you can become a positive influence for your child. You intend to complete courses directed at bettering yourself whilst in custody and upon your ultimate release, hope to get some work in the mechanical field. In the past, when you have been able to maintain employment, you have been better at staying out of trouble.
In my assessment, this is a very serious example of crimes of this nature. It involved the invasion of a home late at night. It was a group attack, involving weapons. The purpose of attending there was to exact retribution for the incidents that had earlier occurred. It, therefore, involved an element of vigilantism. I acknowledge the assaults inflicted did not result in serious injury, but that, as I have already noted, is only because of the resistance offered by the Hankins. It is obvious from the demeanour displayed by each of you in forcing entry, and refusing to leave, that violence was intended. Such behaviour must be strongly condemned and punished, and others who may be minded to behave in similarly lawless ways, must understand that serious consequences will flow from such conduct.
I note that each of you entered pleas of guilty to these crimes. I do not consider, however, that your pleas of guilty are in any way demonstrative of insight or remorse for your conduct. They simply are a reluctant acceptance of the inevitable given your criminal conduct was captured on CCTV. The State’s case was a very strong one. You did not enter your pleas of guilty until the day the trial was due to commence.
I acknowledge that the pleas of guilty have saved the complainant’s from giving evidence about what was, obviously, a very traumatic experience for them, but in terms of the value in the sentencing exercise, the pleas of guilty carry little weight in my assessment.
It is trite to say that neither of you are to be punished for your past criminal offending, but there is clearly a strong need for retribution, deterrence and protection of society to be reflected in the sentence. I also note that each of you has, in the past, been given the benefit of sentences directed at encouraging your rehabilitation, but it seems neither of you have been sufficiently motivated to take up those opportunities. Whilst rehabilitation should not, in my view, be completely ignored in this sentencing exercise, particularly in respect to Tye Ferguson, given his age, the prospects of rehabilitation could not be said to be strong for either of you.
To reflect whatever prospects do remain, I will order eligibility for parole, but only after you have each served the minimum time which justice requires in light of all of the matters to which I have referred.
As far as sentence is concerned, as I have already noted, in terms of criminal culpability for what happened and your respective moral culpability for the crime, I do not consider there is any need to differentiate between you. What you did, you did together and each of you bears equal responsibility for it.
A slight allowance should be made in sentencing to recognise the differences in your respective criminal histories. Whilst Tye Ferguson’s past offending is certainly very poor, it has not quite reached the magnitude of his father’s.
This was a terrible home invasion, perpetrated with the intention of exacting retribution. Clearly, a substantial term of imprisonment is warranted.
I make the following orders. Stuart Alexander Ferguson, you are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years and three months, commencing 11 January 2026, to reflect time already served in custody. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served two years of that period of imprisonment.
Ty Ferguson, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years, commencing 7 September 2025. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served twenty-one months of that period of imprisonment.
I make a compensation order in favour of Nathan and Marita Hankin in an amount to be assessed.