STATE OF TASMANIA v IZAC RILEY KING 10 DECEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE CUTHBERTSON J
Izac Riley King, you have been found guilty by a jury of taking part in an affray. The crime of taking part in an affray involves two or more people fighting in a public place and causing terror to “His Majesty’s subjects”. By the verdict, the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were engaged in fighting and that some or all of the force you used was unlawful. During the trial, it was argued on your behalf that the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were not acting in lawful defence of another when you were engaged in the fighting. That argument was clearly rejected by the jury. It now falls to me to determine the factual basis of sentence consistent with the jury’s verdict based on the evidence presented during the course of the trial. The State argues that I should find that all of the force you used was unlawful. Your counsel argues that I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that was the case. The entirety of the affray was captured on CCTV footage, albeit from some distance. Certain parts of the affray were also recorded on a security officer’s body worn camera and on the mobile phones of two civilian witnesses. I have given consideration to all of that footage together with the evidence given by witnesses who observed the altercation which occurred. I make the following findings of fact.
This crime was committed on 2 October 2023. You were jointly charged with Krista Jennifer Bryan, Storm Louise Quinn and Danny Crawford. In this case, the fight took place at Eastlands Shopping Centre at Rosny. It was about 3.45pm in the afternoon and the centre was busy. You, Ms Quinn and Mr Crawford were walking together through the centre. Ms Bryan and her partner, Louis Taylor-Lawdorn, were also walking through the centre on the second floor pushing children in a pram. You were at the front of your group which was slightly ahead of the other group. You were pushing two small children in a pram. You turned around to face in the direction of Mr Taylor-Lawdorn and Ms Bryan and walked backwards for a short distance. You and the rest of your group stopped and Ms Bryan and Mr Taylor-Lawdorn walked past. Ms Bryan appeared to say something in the direction of your group. Ms Bryan and Ms Quinn then exchanged words. Ms Bryan approached Mr Taylor-Lawdorn, who was standing a short distance away with a pram, and handed her phone to him. She then walked towards Ms Quinn and the two started fighting.
You and Mr Crawford stood watching for a short time before the two of you turned your attention to Mr Taylor-Lawdorn and approached him. At this stage he was still standing a short distance away from the altercation with the pram. The two of you approached him in an aggressive fashion. You removed a jumper from around your waist, put it on the ground and together with Mr Crawford commenced fighting Mr Taylor-Lawdorn. Mr Taylor-Lawdorn did not initiate the physical altercation. Both you and Mr Crawford got Mr Taylor-Lawdorn to the ground and forcefully punched him numerous times. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the use of force at this stage of the fighting was unlawful. There is not the least suggestion that you or Mr Crawford were defending yourselves or each other. Both of you were above Mr Taylor-Lawdorn who was well and truly overpowered and on the ground. You and Mr Crawford initiated the violence and attacked Mr Taylor-Lawdorn in a savage manner.
You did disengage from the fight when Ms Bryan and another female intervened. You grabbed your jumper and took a scooter away from Ms Quinn and moved away a short distance. Ms Quinn and Ms Bryan commenced fighting again. Mr Crawford and Mr Taylor-Lawdorn had continued to fight and both were on the ground. A security guard, Mr Alexandrou then attended. While he was trying to intervene, you joined in the fight again. You attempted to pull Mr Taylor-Lawdorn away from Mr Crawford. Your involvement at this stage of the altercation is relatively brief and ends when Ms Bryan stood in front of you and shouted at you to get away. You grabbed some items before leaving the area with Ms Quinn. Both of you appear to be laughing. Other footage shows Ms Bryan and Ms Quinn continuing to fight in another part of the shopping centre at which time you pull the prams out of the way and appear to discourage Mr Crawford from further engagement.
I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the force used during your second engagement in the altercation was not lawful. At that stage, Mr Crawford was armed with a knife. Security guards were present and trying to intervene. Your further involvement only served to make that difficult. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in those circumstances you did not genuinely believe that the use of force was necessary in order to defend Mr Crawford. In addition, you had appeared unconcerned shortly before becoming involved in the fighting again, and were apparently amused by the events in the immediate aftermath which strongly points away from you experiencing any genuine concern for Mr Crawford’s welfare at any relevant time.
The altercation was clearly terrifying for those unfortunate enough to witness this conduct. Children at the centre, including in the prams belonging to the groups involved in the fighting, were obviously upset and screaming. A number of witnesses gave evidence of being concerned for their own safety and the safety of others. One of the witnesses described being ashamed to be human as a result of what he had witnessed. The conduct of you and your co-accuseds was totally unacceptable. I note the jury did not take long to convict you of this offence which is indicative of the strength of the case against you.
The State recognises that your level of involvement in the fight was not as great as the others. Ms Quinn and Ms Bryan engaged in at least three altercations using significant violence. Mr Crawford did not disengage from fighting Mr Taylor-Lawdorn but continued to fight before pulling out a knife. You did, however, direct significant force towards Mr Taylor-Lawdorn, particularly during the first period of your involvement in the fight.
You are 24 years old. You were 21 years old at the time of this offending. You have relevant prior matters. Your criminal history commences when you were a youth. You were dealt with pursuant to the Youth Justice Act on a number of occasions for a range of matters including offences of violence and anti-social conduct including wilfully obstructing a police officer, unlawfully possessing a dangerous article in a public place and three counts of common assault. You were not convicted on those youth matters. In May 2021, you were sentenced on your plea of guilty in this Court to a charge of attempted aggravated armed robbery committed when you were 17 years old. You were sentenced to a period of 18 months’ imprisonment with all but 18 days of that sentence suspended for 18 months with a condition that you submit to the supervision of a probation officer. In April 2020, you were sentenced for numerous offences of dishonesty and breaches of police family violence order in the Hobart Magistrates Court. A 12 month community correction order was made with a condition that you attend, participate in and complete the Equips Domestic Abuse Program. In 2021 you were fined on charges of breach of bail. In 2025 you were fined and convicted of charges of stealing, fail to appear, breach of bail, escape, make off without payment, breach of police family violence orders and destroy property. These offences were committed both before and after you took part in the affray.
You have been remanded in custody on this charge for a total of 39 days. You have, however, been remanded in custody since 29 March 2025 in relation to a different allegation.
It was put to me that you come from a stable background. This is not consistent with the information contained in the comments on passing sentence relating to the aggravated armed robbery charge which noted your upbringing was impacted by your father’s excessive drinking and domestic violence. Your parents separated when you were 13 and by the age of 15 you were homeless. You completed education to grade 10 level. I am told that your mother now lives in Queensland, has re-partnered, and has a stable life. You would like to move to Queensland where you would benefit from her support. You have three children from a previous relationship. Two of your children were with you at the time that you took part in this affray. You have previously held employment with Huon Aquaculture.
I am told that you attended Eastlands with no intention of participating in any sort of fight but became involved in someone else’s dispute. Two of the others charged with this offending have been dealt by another judge of this Court. Ms Bryan pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of twelve months subject to the condition that she submit to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of twelve months. She was 23 years old at the time of the offence and had few prior matters, having been dealt with without conviction for disorderly conduct and destroy property in 2019. She was sentenced on the basis that she participated in the affray on more than one occasion, but also that she had demonstrated a level of responsibility afterwards by remaining behind and waiting for police to arrive. Mr Crawford has also been sentenced on his plea of guilty to taking part in the affray together with the offence of being unlawfully armed in a public place. He was 22 years old at the time of the offending. He had a number of prior convictions as an adult for various offences of dishonesty, violence, drug and driving matters. At the time of his involvement in the affray he had not received a sentence of suspended or actual imprisonment. He had also been sentenced for offences committed after his involvement in the affray which included breach of bail, breach of police family violence order, three counts of unlawfully possessing a dangerous article in a public place and possession of a firearm. It was noted he has a moderate intellectual disability and was being assessed for funding from the NDIS. He was sentenced to a period of nine months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of 18 months on his release from custody. The suspension of his sentence was also subject to conditions that he be supervised by a probation officer.
Engaging in violent brawling in any public place is a serious matter. In this case, the fighting took place in a busy shopping centre in the presence of a number of adults and children, including your own. Such conduct has no place in our community. Members of the public ought to be able to go shopping and business owners ought to be able to conduct their lawful commercial activities without being subjected to such distressing conduct. General deterrence is an important sentencing consideration. It is necessary to make clear to others who might be minded to engage in this way that such conduct will not be tolerated. Your record of prior matters is such that personal deterrence is also a relevant consideration. I take into account your age at the time of the offending and your personal circumstances. Unlike your co-offenders, you are not entitled to the mitigating benefit of a plea of guilty. Further, you had previously had the benefit of a suspended sentence at the time you committed this offence. I note your offending on this occasion did not breach the terms of that suspended sentence or any other court order. You did however, use considerable force when you joined in the attack of Mr Taylor-Lawdorn, particularly during the first part of your engagement. He was on the ground and overpowered by you and Mr Crawford. You both continued to punch him numerous times when he was in that vulnerable position.
A sentence of imprisonment is warranted in the circumstances. I have determined that it is appropriate that it be partly suspended. The period of suspension will commence on your release from custody.
Mr King, you are convicted of the charge of taking part in an affray. You are sentenced to four months imprisonment backdated to 1 November 2025. The balance of that sentence is suspended from 10 December 2025 on condition that for 18 months from your release from custody you do not commit a further offence punishable by imprisonment and are subject to the supervision of a probation officer during the period the order is in force.
As the suspended sentence is conditional on your supervision by a probation officer, the order is subject to the core conditions of a community correction order which are set out at s 42AO(b) to (f) of the Sentencing Act. They will be provided to you in writing. They include that you must report to a probation officer at the office of Community Corrections in Hobart within three clear working days of your release, you must submit to supervision and comply with the directions given by your probation officer, you must not leave Tasmania without permission and you must notify of any change of address. In addition to the core conditions, the order will also include the special condition that you must, during the 18 month operational period of the supervision order submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer.