STATE OF TASMANIA v BRADLEY HOLTON-CRANE 14 DECEMBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Bradley Holton-Crane, you plead guilty to committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm. The crime was committed on 4 March 2019 against Cory Barnett. There is a dispute about the factual basis on which you are to be sentenced. I am to make findings to resolve the disputed facts. A hearing during which I heard evidence was conducted for that purpose. For the purpose of determining the factual issues between you and the State I may only make findings adverse to you if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt they have been proved and I may only make findings of fact in your favour if they are proved on the balance of probabilities. I have already announced my finding in part, but these are my reasons.
Some basic facts are not in dispute. Just after 3.30 am on 4 March 2019 you went to the home of Samantha Samson in Mayfield. You were in company with another man, Josh Cadman. When you arrived Ms Sampson was inside with her then friend Tamara Rangi-Clarke and Mr Barnett. At the time, you were aged almost 32. Mr Barnett was 19. You had been in a relationship with Ms Rangi-Clark but the relationship had ended not long before. You came into the house through the front door. You were wearing gloves. Ms Rangi-Clark and Mr Barnett were in Ms Sampson’s bedroom. You entered that room holding a three bladed axe. The head of the axe was a flat circular shape. It bore medieval or Viking type insignias and was divided into four sections. One section of the head was attached to a long metal handle. The remaining three sections were each fashioned into curved blades. I have only seen photographs of the weapon but the head appears to be of solid construction and the blades look to be very sharp. As you entered the bedroom you struck Mr Barnett with the axe to his left thigh above the knee. The blow caused a five centimetre superficial laceration. In the course of the physical altercation between you and Mr Barnett which then followed Mr Barnett suffered further injuries. There were two very significant lacerations, one eight centimetres long on the back of his head, and another deep wound 15 centimetres long towards the back of his neck. In addition he suffered a fractured skull, a fractured vertebrae and significant blood loss.
It follows from your plea of guilty that you admit that you struck Mr Barnett with the axe intending to disable, disfigure or do grievous bodily harm to him. The particulars of the indictment allege that you, with that intent, struck Mr Barnett to his head, neck and leg. The prosecution case was that you went to Ms Sampson’s home having been alerted that Mr Barnett was present, angry about what you perceived was his relationship with Ms Rangi-Clark and about Mr Barnett’s conduct towards you during the previous evening. The prosecution alleges that you took the axe into the bedroom in which Mr Barnett was present, intending to use it against Mr Barnett, and that all of Mr Barnett’s injuries were the result of the intentional application of force by you.
Your case was that you were invited to the home and were surprised to find Mr Barnett there. You claimed to have only swung the axe at Mr Barnett once, to his leg. You admit that the blow to Mr Barnett’s leg was inflicted with the intent to cause serious injury, but claim either that you did not cause the injuries to Mr Barnett’s head and neck, or that those and the other injuries were unintentionally caused in the course of the physical altercation which followed in which you were not the aggressor.
As I have previously announced, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all of the injuries suffered by Mr Barnett were the result of the intentional application of force by you accompanied by an intent to cause disabling injury or grievous bodily harm.
Mr Barnett gave evidence. Mr Barnett knew you knew as a friend of Ms Rangi-Clark. He described you as, after walking into the bedroom, striking him on the leg with the axe. He then fell onto the bed with you over him. He realised, he said, that he would have to fight to defend himself and tried to punch you. At one point during the struggle he and you fell from the bed onto the floor while the axe was still in your hand. He was not able to say how, in the course of this struggle, his head and neck were cut. However he said that, after being struck, he managed to get away and left the house. When he did so the head of the axe, which had dislodged from the handle, remained wedged in the wound at the back of his neck. That aspect of his evidence was not challenged and must mean that the injury to his neck occurred last. He said that, at least for a time, you chased him with the handle of the axe still in your hand, but that you then turned your attention to Ms Rangi-Clark who was running in the opposite direction. Mr Barnett made his way to the home of a friend some distance away from where an ambulance was called.
In important respects Mr Barnett’s evidence is supported by the objectively proved circumstances, especially the nature and location of his injuries. It is also supported in important respects by the evidence of Ms Rangi-Clark. She said that she and Mr Barnett were invited to Ms Sampson’s house, which was not far from where she was living at the time, to socialise and to use drugs. She said that they had not been there long when you arrived. At the time she, Mr Barnett and Ms Sampson were in the bedroom looking at something. The substance of her evidence is that when you came into the bedroom you were carrying the axe and your attention quickly focussed on Mr Barnett. When she tried to get between you and Mr Barnett, you pushed her out of the way, and then swung the axe at Mr Barnett. What then occurred, as she described was that you pushed Mr Barnett onto the bed and continued to swing the axe at him. She said that you both, at one point, fell onto the floor. She said that Mr Cadman pulled you away from Mr Barnett, and that when Mr Barnett got free he ran away. All of that evidence supports Mr Barnett’s account. Ms Rangi-Clark was clearly wrong about some things. She said that you were accompanied by two men. The other evidence establishes that only one other man, Josh Cadman, was present. She also said that the first blow struck by you was aimed at Mr Barnett’s head and she did not see how the injuries to the leg and to the neck were caused. I am satisfied that the first blow was struck to Mr Barnett’s leg because I accept his evidence about that, and that Ms Rangi-Clark, possibly because of the passage of time, is wrong about the order of the blows.
Before referring to your account there is a further largely undisputed aspect of the evidence which should be mentioned. During the previous evening Mr Barnett spent time at his sister’s home with Ms Rangi-Clark. You arrived and an argument took place between you and Ms Rangi-Clark in the driveway. Mr Barnett went outside and told you to “fuck off” and “leave Ms Rangi-Clark alone.” You angrily responded to Mr Barnett and suggested that the argument had nothing to do with you.
You claimed that in the early hours of the following morning you were invited by Ms Sampson to her home to share cannabis. You said that you arrived wearing gloves because it was cold. When you first knocked on the door no-one answered, but then the door was opened and left unattended. You stepped into the house and heard a male voice. You claimed to have not brought the axe with you. Rather, you said you found it just inside the front door and picked it up. You walked into the bedroom and were surprised to see Mr Barnett. According to you, Mr Barnett shouted something like “gun, gun” and moved towards you pushing Ms Rangi-Clark out of the way. You swung the axe at his thigh, but then Mr Barnett took you into a bear hug, pushed you onto the bed on your back and then “came over the top” of you. You then wrestled on the bed before falling to the floor at which time the axe remained on the bed. Both of you then got up and grabbed for the axe, but you said that you picked it up and held it across your body in front of you when Mr Barnett came down on top of you again. You said that the physical conflict ended when Mr Barnett ran off after being pulled off you by Mr Cadman. You claimed that you only swung the axe at Mr Barnett once, and his other injuries must have occurred accidentally when he came on top of you as you lay on the bed holding the axe.
I have no hesitation in rejecting your account. You claimed to have been surprised to see Mr Barnett in the bedroom. However, after admitting that you recognised the male voice as Mr Barnett’s, you claimed that you picked up the axe from just inside the front door fearing that Mr Barnett may shoot at you again as you claimed he had done earlier in the night. That claim is completely inconsistent with you then walking into the room in which you knew Mr Barnett was present. You claimed to have been about the same size as Mr Barnett at the time. Even allowing for the possibility that you are much heavier now than you were in 2019 you are obviously a much older and larger man that Mr Barnett. Your claim to have been wearing gloves for warmth at that time of the year is fanciful. In your evidence you provided no plausible explanation of how Mr Barnett could have suffered such serious injuries to the back of his head and to his neck. Your account of Mr Barnett having suffered the injuries as he jumped or fell onto you as you lay on the bed could only logically result in injuries to the front part of his body, and then only if the blade of the flat head of the axe was being held oriented towards him. On one of these occasions you described yourself as lying on your back holding the axe above your head. If that were true, how the blade could have come into contact with Mr Barnett in the locations in which he was injured in a way which caused the injuries he suffered is beyond my understanding. In general I found your account to be so illogical and implausible that it can be rejected as not reasonably possible.
In addition, Mr Barnett impressed me as a clear, straightforward and honest witness. His evidence was internally consistent and plausible. In most though not all respects it was consistent with what Ms Rangi-Clark said. I think Ms Rangi-Clark’s evidence was honest but I regard Mr Barnett’s evidence as much more reliable. I am satisfied that the events earlier in the evening provided a clear motive for your antagonism towards him. I think it highly likely that Ms Sampson, for reasons not explained by the evidence, notified you of the presence of Ms Rangi-Clark and Mr Barnett at her home. Whether or not that is true I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you went there with the axe intending violence. There is no plausible explanation for Mr Barnett’s injuries other than that they all resulted from the intentional application of force. Applications of force with that weapon to the head and neck of Mr Barnett could only have been with the intention of causing serious disabling injury. I do not lose sight of the other injuries suffered by Mr Barnett which must have required the application of considerable force.
You are now aged 35. You have no physical or mental health issues which are relevant to sentence. You left school in grade 9 but you are literate and numerate and have demonstrated an ability to hold employment. You have abused substances since you were 18 which is reflected in your record which includes many drug related and driving offences as well as offences of violence. You have served a number of sentences over the last couple of years, including for family violence. This is the primary reason that you have not retained care of your two sons now aged 14 and 13. Your imprisonment will affect them but the impact on innocent persons is part of the price to be paid for serious crime. This crime was committed in 2019. The delay in dealing with it has arisen for a number of reasons. Other charges of which you were mostly acquitted were dealt with first. It was ready for trial in 2020 but you pleaded guilty at the last moment, only to then dispute some of the facts in a way which I have found not to be true. You instructed your present counsel in September 2022 and it did not take long after that to resolve. I am satisfied that the origin of this crime is the toxic end to the relationship between you and Ms Rangi-Clark combined with your impaired judgment through heavy alcohol and drug use. You claim to have used Ice and been without sleep for days before attacking Mr Barnett. That of course does not reduce the seriousness of the crime in any way. I accept that you now wish for Mr Barnett to fully recover. Surgery was required to repair his wounds. He was in hospital for two days and discharged with the expectation that he would make a full physical recovery. However his victim impact statement describes ongoing impairment to his back, and many of the serious psychological impacts which would be expected to be experienced by the victim of a crime of this nature. He says his whole life has been changed and that he continues to experience anxiety, nightmares and social isolation. He also describes the significant impact on his partner when she was confronted by him after he escaped from you, with confronting injuries and covered in blood.
It is agreed that the sentence I impose, taking into account the time you have spent in custody, should commence on 5 June 2022. I will allow the earliest opportunity for parole. Courts in this State have frequently stated that this crime, subject to circumstances particular to the offence or the offender, justifies a sentence of imprisonment of between three and seven years. I regard this, having regard to the nature of the attack, the level of pre-meditation, the use of a weapon, the multiple blows struck and the nature and seriousness of the wounds and other injuries which were caused, to fall well within that range. Your plea of guilty has avoided a lengthy trial, but Mr Barnett was not spared the trauma of having to give evidence.
You are convicted on the indictment. I order that the axe be forfeited to the State and for that purpose assess its value at $20. You are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four and a half years from 5 June 2022. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served half of that term.