STATE OF TASMANIA v NATHAN JAMES GALE-BURKE 18 SEPTEMBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Mr Gale-Burke, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assault. The crime was one of drunken street violence perpetrated by you and your co-offender on a man in the Devonport CBD in the early hours of the morning of 18 December 2020. You and your co-offender were heavily intoxicated. You did not know the victim, but you may have had some brief contact with him earlier in the night. In any event, for no good reason, when you came across him shortly after midnight outside a takeaway food shop, you and your co-offender confronted him and then brutally assaulted him. He had done nothing to you except push you away with an outstretched hand as you confronted him. The attack commenced as he was trying to walk away from you. It consisted of you both punching and kicking him as he had his back to a wall and then continuing to assault him in that way after he went to the ground. You only stopped when some nearby witnesses pulled you away from him. The victim suffered serious injury. Both the left and right side of his jaw was fractured, and a tooth was knocked out. He required surgery with plates and screws inserted into his jaw. His impact statement reveals that he has suffered significant ongoing physical and psychological consequences. He also incurred significant cost and loss in personal property, including glasses and a sentimental watch.
You are now 31 years of age and were 25 at the time that you committed this crime. You were born and raised in Devonport. You completed year 10 at school but you did not do well and, according to your counsel, your youth was marred by poor company and drug use. This is consistent with your record of prior convictions which demonstrates that you were dealt with as a youth on a number of occasions. However, there is no prior offending as an adult although you were convicted for some street offences subsequently to the commission of this crime. You and your co-offender were initially charged with causing grievous bodily harm. You pleaded not guilty to this charge in the Magistrates Court and it took some time for the case to progress. In 2023, you left Tasmania in breach of your bail obligations. Your explanation for doing so is that you had grown increasingly anxious about the proceedings, and you also wanted to remove yourself from negative influences in Tasmania and make a new start. As things turned out, you have been successful in doing so. You have now held permanent employment in the mining industry in Western Australia for some time. I have been provided with references, including one from one of your superiors in the company that employs you, attesting to your good character and diligence in your work there. This is also supported by the screening assessment, which concludes that although you are eligible to perform community service here, there are significant benefits in you returning to your work in Western Australia. The report author considers that your employment has been and continues to be positive for you. Further, there has been no further offending since you left Tasmania. You only came to the attention of the authorities in Western Australia when you applied for a security licence for the purpose of your employment and the outstanding warrant was discovered. You were extradited to Tasmania, and when you learned that the charge had been amended to assault, you promptly indicated a plea of guilty.
While your recent history may suggest that personal deterrence requires little emphasis, there is no question that general deterrence remains a significant sentencing factor in your case. Drunken street violence of this nature continues to pose a significant problem and is regarded seriously by the community and the courts. Given the predatory and brutal nature of this assault, the only possible sentence is a sentence of imprisonment. Notwithstanding the time that has elapsed since the crime was committed, a delay partly contributed to by your decision to relocate to another jurisdiction, such a sentence is still appropriate. However, in determining the appropriate sentence, I must also take into account the need to impose a sentence which is consistent with that imposed on your co-offender. He was sentenced for this crime by another judge on the 1 September 2023 to a term of 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of two years on conditions which included supervision and community service. His record of prior offending seems to have been worse than yours but otherwise there is very little difference between you in terms of your personal circumstances. There is no distinction at all with respect to your respective moral culpability for the commission of this crime. You both joined in this attack and are equally responsible for it. In order to maintain parity, I intend to impose the same suspended sentence. However, having regard to the positive aspects of your life in Western Australia and the recommendations of community corrections, I am persuaded that there is no significant utility in providing for either supervision or the performance of community service in Tasmania as part of the sentence. The suspended sentence can travel with you and will hang over your head for two years and if you breach the primary condition of that sentence by committing another imprisonable offence of any nature, in Western Australia or any where else, then it is likely that you will again be extradited to Tasmania and required to serve this sentence. Of course, provided that you maintain your current prosocial attitude, there is no reason why that should occur.
Nathan Gale-Burke, you are convicted of the crime of assault and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. The sentence is wholly suspended for a period of two years on condition that you do not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during that period.