STATE OF TASMANIA v BRADLEY THOMAS LEE 9 JUNE 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Bradley Lee, the defendant, has been found guilty by jury of one count each of aggravated burglary, aggravated armed robbery and assault. These three crimes were committed in the course of one incident of what is colloquially referred to as a home invasion, carried out in the early hours of the morning of 15 August 2021. Identity was the issue in the trial. It is alleged the defendant was in company with one other man who remains unidentified. It is common ground that this other man – referred to in the trial as Male 1 – was the primary aggressor in what happened.
The incident took place at the home of Murray Willis near Karoola where he had a farm. Staying in the house with him that night were his partner Janie Reynolds and his daughter Zoe Willis. The relevant details of the incident as I find them to be are as follows. At about 5.20am Mr Willis was woken by a car coming up the driveway. He got out of bed and got dressed thinking there might be a problem with his stock having got loose. He heard two men at the back door yelling out for them to be let in and threating to break the door down. Mr Willis had just opened the door when Male 1 burst in and used a taser on Mr Willis’s face and head. The defendant was behind Male 1. Both offenders were wearing clown like wigs or headgear. Mr Willis was taken to the kitchen where Male 1 demanded money but both offenders were being vocal. Male 1 continued to use the taser on Mr Willis while money and guns were being demanded.
The defendant was close by armed with a knife and a bat like object. As things progressed and Mr Willis denied having guns, Male 1 kept hitting him to the face, and the defendant hit him around the head and shoulders with the bat. Both offenders kept demanding money and guns. Mr Willis went to a tin in a kitchen drawer where he thought he had some cash. Because he was being continuingly tasered he pulled out the wrong tin. As he was searching for the correct tin he was still being tasered to various parts of his body and being struck around the head and shoulders by the defendant with the bat. He was also punched and kicked to his the head and shoulders while in the kitchen and he started to bleed from facial injuries.
Mr Willis produced a tin with about $2,000 cash in it which Male 1 took and gave to the defendant. As some point during this, Zoe Willis came into the kitchen and, in response to the violence and demands, asked her father about the whereabouts of money. Mr Willis told her about a motorcycle boot in the bedroom. Mr Willis was then taken to the adjacent lounge room where the offenders, primarily Male 1, continued to punch and kick him to the head and body. He was then dragged along the hallway to his bedroom where he produced a motorcycle boot containing about $1,000 which he gave to Male 1. The offenders then left, smashing doors and door handles on the way out and Mr Willis appears to have made his way back to the lounge room.
Zoe Willis gave evidence that she had also been woken by the car and heard the yelling and commotion. She went into the kitchen and could see her father being hit with a weapon of some description by Male 1; and in particular being hit with a weapon. There were two males present; she said, the second one was standing back a little. Both were wearing clown-like headwear. Ms Willis heard “zapping noises” from an early stage, doubtless emanating from the use of the taser on her father.
After being directed by her father to location of cash in the bedroom, she went towards that room but met Ms Reynolds in the corridor. At Ms Reynold’s suggestion, she retrieved her telephone from her room and returned to the lounge room. Her father was still being assaulted by Male 1. She pleaded with the men to stop hurting him. When that did not happen she moved closer to intervene. Male 1 then stepped back from where her father was at which point she saw a knife in Male 1’s hand. He said “Do you want a go, do you”, Ms Willis was then tasered on her neck by Male 1.
At this point the defendant came closer so the two offenders were both standing in front of her as she was being tasered. That first taser contact was only relatively brief but she described a painful sensation. She was turned around, pushed to the ground and tasered on her back by Male 1. She described her body as shaking and immobilised. At that point she could hear her father moaning and being dragged somewhere. It follows that this was being done by the defendant and not Male 1. She was kept on the floor for a time with the use of the taser. Shortly after, as she could not hear any further noise, she got up, went into a walk-in wardrobe in a bedroom and called 000. She also called a neighbour for assistance. She went to her father and saw that his face was badly bleeding and noticed damage to his eye socket. The neighbour arrived, followed by the police and then the ambulance.
What happened to Janie Reynolds also needs to be noted. She was behind Mr Willis when he went to the backdoor and saw the entry of one offender wearing a clown like wig. She saw this person apparently attacking Mr Willis and saw sparks. She noted the presence of another person but as a “blur”. At the point at which Mr Willis was taken to the kitchen, Ms Reynolds went to her bedroom to try to find her phone but was unsuccessful. On her return that she encountered Zoe Willis in the hallway. After telling Ms Willis to get her phone, she went up the hallway to try to get away from what was happening. She tried to close the hallway door but one of the offenders, burst through. Ms Reynolds went into another bedroom, and slammed the door behind her. She tried to hold the handle so that it could not be open. The defendant attempted to get the door open, apparently by kicking at it, and broke the bottom part of the door. She was pushing on the door trying to keep it shut, then heard some yelling out at her. It then went quiet so she hid herself in the walk-in wardrobe at which point she heard someone say “Bitch, bitch, I will get you, bitch”.
Given the sequence of events as described by all witnesses it would seem that this offender was the defendant although nothing of any great significance would flow from who this was in the overall context of assessing culpability as to the crimes found proven.
The next thing Ms Reynolds heard is Mr Willis calling out to her and Ms Willis. She heard a car leave and then left the wardrobe. Mr Willis was taken to the hospital by ambulance. On examination, the most significant injury was significant bruising around his left eye, but he had abrasions bruising and scratches around his head and face and some bruising around his abdomen and across his lower back. A specialist examination identified multiple traumatic injuries to the left eye including an injury to the nerve around the eye. Small pieces of metal debris were found on various parts of his body consistent with the use of a taser.
This truly appalling incident of violence has had a very profound impact on the lives of the three individuals and as a family. I have victim impact statements from Murray Willis and Zoe Wills. Mr Willis has lost the sight in his left eye, and his right eye is damaged to the extent that he cannot read. He is still engaged with health care providers to monitor his eyesight with a priority to preserve the vision he has. Both eyes water constantly. He suffered a broken jaw and continues to have numbness across his top lip. Some two months after the incident, he still had facial numbing from being tasered.
In the attack, he also had two teeth pushed out of place subsequently he had a serious infection that lasted up until two months ago. That caused him a great deal of discomfort and stress. He has lost about 30 kilograms. The physical and emotional disabilities have resulted him selling the farm and a trucking business he had, and he is also going to sell the house and move into the city although he is struggling to deal with leaving the land and adapting to city life.
Mr Willis talks of being very fearful during the attack; he feared that he would be killed and they were going to kill and rape his daughter or partner. He has feelings of helplessness and that he could not protect them. It seems that within about 24 hours of the incident, Mr Willis’s mother passed away and because of the damage to his face, she could not recognise him in her dying moments. From Zoe’s statement it seems that her grandmother was told that Mr Willis had been kicked in the face by a bull, to spare her from knowing the true details of what happened. Mr Willis says, “The incident not only took away my sense of safety in my own home, but it ripped apart my ability to say goodbye to my mother.”
Zoe Willis describes disbelief and confusion at the time as to what was happening. As a trained nurse, when she saw her father in his injured state she automatically assessed the potential in all his injuries. When she initially saw her father’s face she had to turn her head because it was so confronting.
The horror of that night has changed everything for her. Ms Willis speaks of the difficulties in relation to looking after her grandmother on the day she died and her having to take over the primary family role in a palliative care situation. She continues to have flashbacks of the incident, the “creepy, scary costumes” that the offenders were wearing and trying to seek safety in the walk-in wardrobe. She feels very guilty for what she sees as a failure to protect her father and worries very much now about his present condition. She feels constantly frightened. Her emotional reaction has affected her professional life. Her mental health deteriorated to a point where she was an in-patient for a week at a mental health unit. She has been medicated for anxiety and depression.
Lastly, in his statement, Mr Willis also speaks of the severe impact on his partner, Janie Reynolds. At the time of the incident she ran a small bed and breakfast business and was balancing her time between that business and visiting the farm. Their relationship of twelve months duration went from being fun and getting to know each other to a completely different situation. She had to assume the role as a carer for him and had to close the business at the start of 2022. I n the immediate aftermath, Ms Reynolds was left to deal with police and forensic services, coordination of cleaning and repairing the house and keeping the farm running while Mr Willis was recovering. She is now hyper-vigilant and very “jumpy”.
The defendant is now 32; then 30. He has a recorded history of offending going back to 2008 but that record contains nothing of any great significance. It is mostly comprised of traffic matters although in August 2012 he was ordered to perform 70 hours of community service for, primarily, offences of common assault and disorderly conduct. On 8 June 2021 he was dealt with for being in breach of the order with the community service order being cancelled and him being fined in lieu.
I was told that the defendant was raised within a family dedicated as Jehovah’s Witnesses and found himself isolated as a result of that religion, being bullied at school as a result. Because of that situation, he left school at the end of year 9 and left the family home at the age of 15 due to a problematic relationship with his father. Initially he lived with his grandfather, and then an older brother.
As a teenager he started to use cannabis and amphetamines due to the associates he then had, although the use was sporadic for a time. He commenced a relationship with a woman when he was 17 and they had a daughter when he was 20 who is now 12.
At the age of 16 he commenced full time employment in the meat industry and held a managerial position for some five years. He changed employment and lived at Longford with his family for a time during which he had alternative employment in that area. For some reason he quickly descended to a serious level of substance abuse from late 2020. He lost his employment due to a positive drug test. The family moved back to Launceston and his use escalated significantly even further. That seems to have ended the relationship with his partner.
For a time his substance abuse decreased but I was told that as a result of his mother suddenly passing away, he relapsed, apparently due to feelings of guilt. He saw a counsellor on a few occasions because of this but did not take up recommendations for further mental health assistance.
From the history, it is an inference readily drawn that the motivation for these crimes was money to obtain drugs and/or discharge drug debts. I take into account that this defendant played a lesser role in the infliction of violence but I am satisfied that criminal liability is established by way of common purpose, in the execution of which the defendant was a fully active participant. He was, of course, responsible for some actual violence. It was his vehicle in which he and the co-offender drove to and from the property carrying their weapons and paraphernalia.
I accept that some weight must be given to the defendant’s lack of significant offending history. On the other hand, however, the defendant is not able to avail himself of the benefit of a plea of guilty or of co-operation with the police in any respect. The victims were required to give evidence before a jury and to re-live the events of that morning.
Mr Lee, the facts of this case speak for themselves, but it needs to be emphasised that these are very serious crimes and this sort of criminal behaviour needs to be very strongly condemned. That, and attempting to deter others from like conduct are predominant factors in the sentencing process. You and your co-offender were involved in going together to Mr Willis’s home in the early hours of the morning in order to steal, clearly prepared and willing to use violence by whatever means necessary. After forcing your way in, violence ensued and weapons were used. Although the clown like attire did not obscure your faces, it was at least meant to frighten and distract.
You subjected the unsuspecting and defenceless occupants to a terrifying ordeal. Significant violence was inflicted on Mr Willis in a cowardly and sustained attack. Serious injuries and emotional trauma were sustained by him. Those effects are long lasting and he is at some risk of blindness. Ms Willis was assaulted with a taser and she and Ms Reynolds badly traumatised. Their lives as they knew them have been effectively destroyed. Cash in the order of $3000 was stolen.
Such a course of conduct calls for heavy punishment. I take into account the other matter that operates in your favour – that of limited recorded history of offending – although the seriousness of this matter undermines that to a fair degree. You are convicted of the crimes and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2023. The minimum period of time I think you should serve for these crimes is three years and three months and I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served that period. I make a compensation order in favour of Murray Willis for an amount to be assessed and adjourn the hearing of that to a date to be fixed.