STATE OF TASMANIA v KAL 29 JUNE 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
In the first of the defendant’s matters that I am now dealing with, he is charged with the following offences on CN 30344/2026:
- 1x Strike a person with an offensive weapon with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 170(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;
- 1x Aggravated armed robbery contrary to s 240(4) of the Criminal Code;
- 1x Detainee assaulting another person contrary to s 139(b) of the Youth Justice Act; and
- 1x Aiding escape from lawful custody contrary to s 108(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The only matter before me though is the aggravated armed robbery. Aggravated armed robbery is a prescribed offence for a 16-year-old under the Youth Justice Act 1977. The other matters remained before the Youth Justice Court.
The defendant is currently 16 years and 10 months old. On the date of offending, 18 December 2025, he was 16 years and 4 months old. His co-defendant [BAH] was born on 22 May 2008.
In December 2025, the defendant was in detention at Ashley Youth Detention Centre as a result of offending that was committed while in he was in custody awaiting sentence, for which he had been refused bail.
At around 6:44pm on 18 December 2025, the defendant and [BAH] were within the communal area of the Franklin Unit. At the same time, a staff member, Mohammed Abdul-Rehman, was in the kitchenette making drinks for the youths. [BAH] and the defendant engaged in a conversation before they stood up and made their way to the kitchenette.
The defendant stood at the doorway to the kitchenette, asking Mr Abdul-Rehman to let him in. As Mr Abdul-Rehman opened the door, the defendant pushed him back into the kitchenette with one hand and with the other, withdrew a concealed shiv, namely a whiteboard marker with the felt tip removed and replaced with a sharp threaded screw protruding from the tip, from his trousers. While grappling with Mr Abdul-Rehman, the defendant dropped the shiv.
Observing the assault, staff member Lucy Martin attempted to enter the kitchenette, however, was forcibly pushed away from the door by [BAH], preventing her access. [BAH] entered the kitchenette and picked up the shiv from the ground. As the defendant restrained Mr Abdul-Rehman and attempted to pry a set of keys to the detention centre from him, [BAH] used the shiv to stab Mr Abdul-Rehman to the back of his neck near the location of his carotid artery, and a further two times in the back.
The defendant continued to restrain Mr Abdul-Rehman and began to wrestle him for the keys by grabbing hold of the lanyard and attempting to remove the keys. The keys were contained on a lanyard attached to Mr Abdul-Rehman, which provided access to all the units and areas of the detention centre, and to the cells of the other youths within the centre.
[BAH] attempted to get to the keys; however, Mr Abdul-Rehman was successful in pushing him away. [BAH] proceeded to the microwave present on the benchtop and removed the glass plate at the base within. Ms Martin, observing that [BAH] was about to hit Mr Abdul-Rehman with the glass plate, attempted to pull [BAH] to prevent him from hitting Mr Abdul-Rehman.
[BAH] proceeded to look at Ms Martin, raise the glass plate above his head as if he were about to strike her with it, whilst Ms Martin pleaded, “[BAH], please don’t hurt me“. [BAH] then, with a clenched fist, punched Ms Martin forcibly to the right side of her face.
As the defendant restrained Mr Abdul-Rehman in a headlock, [BAH] punched Mr Abdul-Rehman several times to the stomach and then again raised the glass plate over his head, and in a downward motion, struck Mr Abdul-Rehman to the back of the head.
[BAH] then made a second attempt to strike Mr Abdul-Rehman with the glass plate in the same manner; however, Mr Abdul-Rehman was able to momentarily free himself from the defendant. Mr Abdul-Rehman tried to get to the kitchenette door, however, [BAH] grabbed him and dragged him back. Both the defendant and [BAH] continued to restrain Mr Abdul-Rehman, and [BAH] punched him five times to the face.
At the same time, observing the assault, another staff member, Mut Choul Yual, entered the kitchenette and attempted to intervene. Mr Yual then proceeded to grab a toaster to distract the defendant and [BAH] and successfully assisted Mr Abdul-Rehman to get out of the kitchenette. As Mr Abdul-Rehman was moving towards the kitchenette door, the defendant was able to remove the keys to the detention centre from Mr Abdul-Rehman’s lanyard.
Staff members attempted to barricade [BAH] and the defendant within the kitchenette as they searched the kitchenette for items, and [BAH] armed himself with the shiv. The defendant moved the refrigerator and accessed the door behind it and [BAH] used the stolen keys to get out of the kitchenette.
Upon freeing themselves, [BAH] and the defendant proceeded to make their way to other locked units, Meander, Esk, and Rubicon within the detention centre, releasing other youths from their respective cells. With all youths being released from their cells, they engaged in riotous behaviours, fighting between themselves, damaging property of the detention centre, arming themselves with fire-extinguishers and refusing to comply with the lawful demands of the staff and rules of the detention centre.
Using the stolen keys, the youths gained access to the “staff only” areas of the detention centre where they obtained keys to staff member Nikita Roberts’ motor vehicle, namely a blue Subaru WRX. Further, using the stolen keys from Mr Abdul-Rehman, the youths accessed the entry area of the detention centre and escaped by kicking the panel out of the front door.
Exiting the centre building into the carpark, the youths located Ms Roberts’ motor vehicle and using the stolen keys entered it. [BT], one of the other youths, got in the driver’s seat while other youths entered the motor vehicle, and drove away from the detention centre.
Damage was caused by all youths, including the defendant, to the detention centre including but not limited to doors, fixtures, fencing, fire-extinguishers and Perspex screens. Only two of the keys were recovered, and it is estimated to cost some $200,000 to replace the locks at the detention centre.
As a result of being assaulted by the defendant and [BAH], Mr Abdul-Rehman attended the Launceston General Hospital. He complained of tenderness of the face around the right eye with associated blurred vision, pain to a laceration of the right hand, pain to head, chest and right elbow. A history was given was that he had been hit by several people multiple times to the face, head, chest, elbow and right hand. Clinical examination showed a bruise around the left eye with a small bleed over the white of the eye, bruising over the mid forehead, below the right eye and tenderness to the right hand. He had fluctuating confusion, and memory, and was distressed. A CT scan of the brain was normal; X-ray of the hand was normal. He was discharged under own care with follow up by a General Practitioner.
The State asserts that the defendant is criminally responsible for all counts as a joint principal with [BAH]. The Crown seeks a compensation order pursuant to section 47(2)(c) of the Youth Justice Act in favour of Ashley Youth Detention Centre, Department for Education, Children and Young People in an amount to be assessed. I note the application has been made and I adjourn any further proceedings upon that application until a date to be fixed.
In the second matter I am dealing with today involving the defendant, his co-defendant is [HR], aged 17.
Here, the defendant has pleaded guilty to[the following offences on CN 30054/2026:
- 1 count of Aggravated armed robbery contrary to s 240(4) of the Criminal Code
- 1 count of Motor vehicle stealing, pursuant to s 37B(1) of the Police Offences Act
Again, the only matter before me is the aggravated armed robbery. Aggravated armed robbery is a prescribed offence for a 16-year-old under the Youth Justice Act 1977. The other matters remained before the Youth Justice Court.
On the date of this offending, 19 December 2025, the defendant was 16 years and 4 months old.
At around 6:44pm on 18 December 2025, the defendant escaped from the detention centre, as already described. The complainants are Hillary Napier, aged 69, and Giles George, aged 34. They are mother and son and were visiting Australia from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, respectively.
On 19 December 2025 at around 7:15am, the complainants were checking out of the Penguin Beachfront Apartments at 52 Main Road, Penguin. They began carrying their luggage towards their rental car parked outside when they noticed the two defendants sitting in the corner of the carpark.
The defendant and [HR] approached the complainants, with one producing a large knife with a serrated blade. He pointed the tip of the knife towards the complainants. Mr George estimated the length of the blade to be about 8 inches. Both complainants were unsure as to which male was holding the knife. The basis of the charge is that the offence was committed in prosecution of a common purpose, that being to rob the complainants of their car, under s 4 of the Criminal Code.
Both defendants shouted at the complainants, demanding the keys to their car. They threatened to use the knife on the complainants if the complainants did not give them the car key. Mr George then handed over the key. This comprises the aggravated armed robbery.
The defendant demanded the complainants hand over their phones, but the complainants were able to get back inside the rear stairwell of the apartment complex and lock the door behind them. From this position of relative safety, they were able to take a number of photos of the defendants as they attempted to start the car over the next 15-20 seconds. The defendant was in the driver’s seat and was eventually able to deactivate the park brake and drive away.
The defendants were arrested at around 8:40am, with [KAL] arrested from the driver’s seat of the car. A large, serrated bread knife was found in the driver’s side footwell.
[HR] was found with an improvised weapon, which was comprised of a highlighter pen with a screw jutting out of the base.
I have been provided with a detailed report prepared by Youth Justice, the contents of which I have considered carefully. I do not rehearse its contents here. Amongst other things, it informs me that while the defendant did not articulate remorse and demonstrated limited insight into his actions, there appears to be an element of defensive grandiosity, with his statements being unlikely to express the true depth of understanding and feelings associated with his actions. It is also important to know that his recent psychological assessment has revealed that his overall cognitive ability is in the extremely low range.
I am further informed that the defendant was only in the community for about 19 days after a previous period of detention. He has been in Ashley Youth Detention Centre since 8 June 2025, therefore there has been no engagement with Community Youth Justice on his previous Orders, and he has not yet been released to commence an October 2025 12 month supervision order.
The defendant is considered suitable for a community-based order with supervision that requires him to report to and follow the direction of a youth justice worker. The defendant is also eligible to be sentenced to a community-based order under s70(a) and 70(b) of the Youth Justice Act 1997. He is considered suitable for a community service order under s70(c).
The defendant, as I have said, is 16 and therefore he can be sentenced to a maximum of 210 hours of community service. Community Youth Justice can provide suitable activities that can be counted towards community service hours. The defendant aims to participate in education programmes within the community that can be counted towards community service as well. As I understand it, the defendant has 59 hours remaining on a previous order and thus he can be sentenced to a maximum of 151 hours of community service.
In summary, [KAL] has been on remand at Ashley Youth Detention Centre since 8 June 2025. He has recently been diagnosed with a cognitive disability that is in the extremely low range, as well as earlier diagnoses of ADHD, Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. [KAL] has been supported by CYMHS to submit a NDIS application. He has a supported living address available in Glenorchy that is staffed by NEXUS and he hopes soon to manage independently and take responsibility for the lease. [KAL] is being supported to engage with Claremont College and their automotive workshop. [KAL’s] main area of interest is in motorbikes.
He suffered from very significant adverse childhood experiences and has limited capacity to think through the consequences of his actions before acting impulsively. This has coincided with an absence of safe adults in his life that could support with positive experiences and development. [KAL] has also spent a significant amount of time at Ashley Youth Detention Centre during key developmental stages and risks being institutionalised, Ashley Youth Detention Centre being the only home and safety he has known consistently in recent times.
The defendant has now been dealt with in the Magistrates Court with respect to all summary matters associated with the two indictable charges that I am dealing with today. It is regrettable that the law in a case such as this requires the defendant to be dealt with in two separate jurisdictions – it is very hard to sentence separately for the indictable offences that must be dealt with in this Court, in a fictional isolation from all of the associated offending for which sentence has already been imposed below.
In respect of that summary offending associated with the indictable crimes before me, the Youth Justice Court ordered that the defendant serve a period of detention of 22 months, backdated to 7 June 2025 and made a probation order for a period of two years, commencing at the end of any current term of detention. That order was subject to a number of specially designed conditions to assist [KAL].
Bearing that sentence in mind, the defendant is convicted of the two counts of aggravated armed robbery to which he has pleaded guilty and is before this Court. He is sentenced to a single sentence of 18 months’ detention cumulative to the balance of the period of detention he is currently serving, and which period of 18 months I wholly suspend on condition that he commit no offence which, if committed by an adult, would be punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.
In addition, I make an order pursuant to s 69 of the Youth Justice Act for a period of two years, a condition of which will be that [KAL] complete 150 hours of community service. It will be a special condition of that order that the defendant must attend educational, personal, health and other programs as directed by an assigned youth justice worker.