STATE OF TASMANIA v SCOTT FRANK HAMMOND SHANAHAN CJ
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 21 OCTOBER 2026
Scott Frank Hammond you have been found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant contrary to s 172 of the Criminal Code 1924 at Moonah in Tasmania on or about 31 December 2024 when you pushed her to the ground, pulled her arms behind her back and lifted them. In this case the bodily injury that you caused to the complainant was one that caused serious injury to health.
I find that the general nature of the injuries suffered by the complainant were foreseeable given your conduct towards her. The jury rejected any defence based on self-defence, and I am satisfied that your assault on the complainant was a direct consequence of an argument that escalated between you.
The evidence at trial was characterised by competing accounts of events, by their verdict the jury preferred the evidence of the complainant. The complainant’s evidence was balanced and should be accepted, for example she gave evidence that immediately after the incident, you looked shocked, overwhelmed, apologised, called the ambulance, and remained at the scene. At trial it was accepted, on your behalf, that you had lied to Police both at the property in Moonah before your police interview and during your police interview. I will sentence you on the basis of the complainant’s evidence at trial.
The complainant’s evidence was that you argued about your lease and who was entitled to live at the house, and about you kicking her out. You threw her out of the house quite violently, without her bag which had her Ventolin in it. You locked the front door. When you eventually let the complainant come back inside to get the Ventolin, you were standing at the end of the bed in the bedroom. She was getting her stuff to leave. She called you a retard, and you came storming in. You had her left arm in your hand. You lifted her arms up, and back, and then down, and she could feel a bone in her arm break. She heard the crack and then her arm went all floppy or like jelly. She could not feel her hand, and she said that she was in a lot of pain.
This was a serious injury. It was accepted by your counsel, during submissions on 2 September 2026, that you do not get a comminuted fracture of the distal left humerus without the application of some very significant force. It is quite a large bone in the upper body.
The complainant, on presentation to ambulance staff immediately following the assault, was in significant pain and was treated with fentanyl and a methoxyflurane whistle. She was given more pain relief in the emergency department where she was treated with a u-slab plaster which was applied from wrist to armpit, which was utilised to stabilise the fracture prior to repair by surgery.
Dr Booth the Associate Director at the Royal Hobart Hospital emergency department gave evidence. He was not the treating doctor and gave evidence from the medical records. The complainant suffered a spiral fracture associated with an arm that has been twisted and pulled. The complainant had to have surgery to repair the fracture which was a procedure of open reduction and fixation, where the arm is opened and the fracture repaired with a plate.
During that process the orthopaedic team found that the complainant’s radial nerve had been severed and had to be repaired. The radial nerve was severed by a bone fragment. Healing time for her injuries was expected to be some six weeks. The complainant was discharged on 2 January 2025.
The State accepted that you do not have a record of physical assaults and your record is made up primarily of traffic matters, but that you have a recent conviction for selling a controlled plant or its products on 29 August 2025 and now dated convictions of recklessly throwing a missile in 2017 and discharging a firearm in a public place in 2012.
Community Corrections Report
I received a home detention assessment report from Community Corrections dated 27 August 2026 which was provided as an up date to the pre-sentence report dated 2 June 2026. I have relied upon the more recent report.
Community Corrections provided a history in which you outlined a history of methamphetamine use which you attributed to being in a relationship with your former partner, the complainant. You reported as being methamphetamine sober for some three months as you now reside with your mother. You nominated your mother’s residence for any period of home detention. You were assessed as suitable for home detention in respect of option 4 which would, amongst other conditions, require you to remain at the nominated address except between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm daily unless approved by a probation officer. You were found unsuitable for community service but suitable for community based supervision. You have been assessed as being at high risk of future family violence and are eligible for the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program. You have also been deemed eligible for the EQUIPS addiction program.
At the time of the latter report, which was read to you before being finalised, you stated that you were employed as a welder but had been unable to work due to strict bail conditions. It is noted that your qualifications are as a painter and decorator.
The more extensive pre-sentence report dated 2 June 2026 provides a lengthier account of your antecedents. You reported an irregular childhood, with your parents separating whilst you were an infant and your mother being your primary carer. You had limited exposure to family violence being an incident where a partner of your mother’s harmed your brother. You speak to your father occasionally. He lives in the north of the State.
You have two children, a son and a daughter aged eight and eighteen, from previous relationships. It was put on your behalf that those relationships did not involve family violence. You reported an on-again-off-again significant relationship which you have been in for some eight years and which produced one child, your son, now aged eight years old. This partner is not the complainant. You are hoping to reside with that partner if you are sentenced to home detention. Your son he has high needs and has been diagnosed with a developmental language disorder.
You described your relationship with the complainant who you said you were with for approximately five months. You stated that it was a relationship included verbal arguments from approximately three months into the relationship which you attributed to the complainant’s substance use and mental health conditions. An interim family violence order was made on 15 January 2025.
It is of some concern that you appear to attribute all the difficulties with your last relationship solely to the complainant and make no acknowledgement of your own methamphetamine use, which you also ascribe to living with the complainant.
You reported that you completed year 12 at Rosny College. You have a Certificate III in painting and decorating. You reported below average reading and writing levels but stated that you “can get by”.
You report experiencing low moods and anxiety. You have been diagnosed with ADHD for which you are medicated. You described limited social use of alcohol. You spoke about your amphetamine use which you indicated as most recently occurring one month prior to interview when you would smoke amphetamine daily in the company of the complainant. I find that account of your methamphetamine use hard to accept because it suggests that you went from not using amphetamine to smoking it daily. You say that at the height of this use you would spend up to $1,000 a week on methamphetamine split between you and your now ex-partner. The length of your difficulties with methamphetamine was acknowledged by your counsel in the following submission on 2 September 2026:
“Mr Hammond accepts that in more recent years, he has at times struggled with illicit drug use. He has, on his record of prior matters, an isolated matter of driving with methamphetamine in 2019.”
When asked about your offending you minimised your role in your offending behaviours. You stated that you had been planning to propose to the victim on the night of the offences when a verbal argument ensued. It is hard to recognise the plan to propose with the complainant’s evidence that you threw her out of the house quite violently and locked the door. Your interview with Community Corrections laid the blame on the victim and denied the conduct for which you have been convicted. You indicated that your lawyer and the justice system is biased towards people being charged with family violence offences.
I asked about your attitude to your offending and was told that you maintain the version of events you gave a trial. It was put that you dispute the summation in the report regarding a bias towards family violence offenders within the system. In this regard your counsel stated:
“Mr Hammond instructed me that he acknowledges that he has been, over the course of proceedings, frustrated about the complainant’s verbal abuse towards him, both in the course of their relationship, but also during the trial, she was verbally abusive towards him and his counsel.”
Again, you lay the blame directly on the complainant and do not accept responsibility for your own actions. The report was read to you but you say, through counsel, that you were not given an opportunity to explain yourself. Ultimately, how you engage Community Corrections must be a matter for you, and the Court can only act on the material that is presented to it.
You also complain about on-going contact from the complainant. Ultimately, it was submitted that your attitude towards your offending behaviour, is that you wish to move on from this offending and to better your life, and to ensure that you do not engage in this type of offending into the future.
It is to be doubted that you will achieve those aims unless you develop some insight into your conduct and take responsibility for your offending.
Mitigation
I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf, I was provided with reports from Dr Gideon Oju, a consultant psychiatrist dated 21 November 2025 and Dr Thomas Macrossan of Healthology Medical Centre Rokeby dated 30 July 2026.
Dr Oju states that you presented with complex mental health needs, a possible neurodevelopmental disorder and a history of substance abuse. At the time of the psychiatric report you had recently been imprisoned for breaching bail and were living with your mother under curfew. You had a history of poor decision-making, impulsivity and emotional dysregulation with episodes of feeling overly excitable and happy followed by significant low mood. You were diagnosed with depression some 20 years ago and were diagnosed with a severe learning disability whilst at school. Whilst Community Corrections reported you completing year 12 at Rosny College Dr Oju’s report states that in high-school you were approved for part time schooling and did a building and construction course in year 11 instead of completing year 12. Dr Oju dealt initially with a non-stimulant treatment regime for your ADHD.
Dr Macrossan’s report was generated at your request asking him to describe the changes you have experienced since commencing medication to treat your ADHD. Dr Macrossan notes that he is not a psychiatrist which conditions the significance of his report which is largely an account of the history you provided to him.
It was put that you currently receive a Centrelink benefit, and are actively engaged with your job services provider. I understand that this is the first time that you have been in receipt of Centrelink benefits. In the past, you have always been employed. Your most recent employment was as a welder at a bin hire business which you were engaged in at the time of the offence and for some time thereafter. Your employment history includes working as a painter both for a business, and for yourself, and in forestry and as an arborist. I am told you are keen to return to work, and that your ultimate goal and hope is to return to work as an arborist.
Essentially it weas put in mitigation that having been treated for ADHD has been something of an awakening and that you are now no longer disordered, no longer overwhelmed, that you are less impulsive and better able to think through the consequences of your actions. It is put that you are no longer in contact with the complainant.
I raised the issue with your counsel as to whether there were three summary family violence matters outstanding which relate to the same complainant and subsequent matters as well. I simply note those matters at this stage.
I was told that you have served 46 unallocated days in custody. Your counsel accepted that community supervision on its own would be an insufficient sentencing order. Ultimately, I was urged to impose a sentence that falls short of a period of immediate actual imprisonment.
Disposition
Scott Frank Hammond you have been found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant, contrary to s 172 of the Criminal Code 1924 on indictment 414 of 2025.
Your conduct constituted a serious assault by which you broke the complainant’s left arm and severed her radial nerve. Your conduct has, no doubt, had substantial on-going impacts on the complainant’s life. Your conduct is to be denounced and the needs of general deterrence are to be served, societal attitudes to this type of offending have changed as have applicable penalties. Those considerations are to be balanced against your continuing needs around rehabilitation, and the fact that you are now 41 years old. I confirm that you have served 46 days in custody which can be allocated in respect of this matter.
I impose one sentence, I sentence you to 16 months’ imprisonment which takes into account the time you have served. To be clear, I have reduced the term of imprisonment that I would otherwise have imposed by 46 days. I suspend the whole of the 16 month term for a period of 18 months. The order suspending the 16 month term is subject to the following:
- It is a condition of that order that whilst in force you do not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then a court must activate the suspended part of your sentence unless that is unjust;
- I make an order under s 24(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1997 that the order suspending the 16 month term of imprisonment be subject to your compliance with the following Community Correction Order.
- I order that you are to be subject to a Community Correction Order, pursuant to s 42AN of the Sentencing Act. The order commences today. You must comply with the order for 18 months. While the order is in operation, it is subject to all of the core conditions under s 42AO of the Sentencing Act and the following special conditions:
- You must submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- You must attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer;
- If directed by a probation officer you must attend, participate in and complete the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program as directed;
- You must undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- You must submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probation officer;
- If directed by a probation officer you must attend, participate in and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program as directed;
- You must, during the operational period of the order, submit to psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
You must report to a probation officer at 75 Liverpool Street, Hobart, by 4:00pm on Friday, 23 October 2026.
The effect of the order under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act is that the community correction order works as a condition upon which the suspension of your sentence rests.
If you breach those conditions you may be brought back to the Court for re-sentencing and required to serve an immediate term of imprisonment. By making those orders under s 24(2) I further acknowledge the seriousness of your offending.
The intention of this sentence is that having recognised the need for deterrence you also have the opportunity to find a new direction in life without resorting to violence in moments of stress or impulsivity. It is entirely a matter for you whether you now commit to improving your life, but these orders seek to give you that opportunity.
As I observed to your counsel during the course of submissions at 41 years of age you are at a crossroads and this sentencing disposition offers you the opportunity for change and to make your life better.