STATE OF TASMANIA v CHRISTOPHER JOHN HOWARD 16 MARCH 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
On 10 January 2024, at about 11.10pm, the defendant, Christopher John Howard, then aged 43 years old and in a state of intoxication, stole the complainant’s car from a service station in Main Road, Claremont after physically and verbally abusing him to the extent that he had fled in fear with his keys and wallet to the inside of the service station. Unfortunately, in his panic, the complainant left the car running and the defendant was able to drive off in it, later abandoning it at Lachlan. The circumstances amount to the crime of carjacking to which the defendant pleaded guilty on the day of his trial when the complainant, who had suffered severely both psychologically and financially as a result of the offending, was due to give evidence.
At the time of the commission of the crime, the defendant was two years and one month into a three-year suspended sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, imposed on 10 December 2021, for the crimes of robbery and unlawfully injuring property.
After his arrest, the defendant spent 63 days in custody which must be taken into account in respect of the present offending.
The defendant has a long history of prior offending involving violence and dishonesty, which I am told was very much in a context of homelessness and substance abuse, which have now been ameliorated by secure housing, relative abstinence and a period of stability in which the defendant’s offending has ceased.
None of this is disputed by the State, although Crown Counsel, Ms Avery, pointed out to me that the defendant’s claimed alcohol use of once a fortnight with his mother, is at odds with his pre-sentence report of 13 February 2026, which states that he drank 10 standard drinks a week, “most often in the company of his mother”. Also, I note that he reported still using cannabis. The claim of abstinence, apart from the fortnightly drinks with his mother, as of today though is not challenged.
The crime of carjacking is a serious one and the impact on the victim in this case has been profound. General deterrence and denunciation are to the fore in sentencing considerations, but as to personal deterrence, I think that the defendant’s circumstances justify weight being given to rehabilitation.
As to the breach of suspended sentence, I am of the view that the two thirds completion of the period of suspension, the absence of any other application to breach the sentence, and the defendant’s present trajectory, are significant considerations. I am of the opinion that an order under the relevant subsection activating the whole of the sentence held in suspense would be unjust, and instead I activate 63 days of the sentence.
The defendant is convicted of carjacking and on the allied summary offence of driving whilst not the holder of a driver licence, being charge 2 on complaint no 1363/2024. I impose a single sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.
In addition, as recommended in the defendant’s pre-sentence report, I make a community correction order for a period of twelve months, which will include the following special conditions from Section 42AP of Sentencing Act 1997:
- (1)(c) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer;
- (1)(e) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- (1)(g) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- (1)(j) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
I note that due to substance abuse issues related to the defendant’s current offending, he was assessed for the EQUIPS Addiction Program. According to his pre-sentence report he has been deemed eligible for referral, and no issues have been identified that would prevent attendance or engagement at this time. Accordingly, I make it an additional condition of the community correction order that:
“If directed by a probation officer, you must attend, participate in, and complete the EQUIPS Addiction Program as directed.”