STATE OF TASMANIA v JACKSON ELIJAH MANSFIELD 4 FEBRUARY 2021
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Jackson Elijah Mansfield has pleaded guilty to crimes charged on indictment of one count of dangerous driving and one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm. He is also to be sentenced on related summary offences of motor vehicle stealing, evading police (aggravated circumstances) and drive while disqualified.
The defendant’s offending arose out of a course of driving on 30 January 2020. At that time he had held a novice learner motorcycle licence which had expired. He was disqualified from driving or holding or obtaining a driver licence until 19 January 2024.
On 30 January 2020, at approximately 7:00am a motorcyclist rode his Honda motorcycle to work and parked it in Purdy’s Lane in Hobart. He unintentionally left the keys in the ignition. At some time before 1pm that day, the defendant stole the motorcycle.
At approximately 1pm he rode the motorcycle along Argyle Street through a red light at the intersection with Collins Street. He had a pillion passenger and neither the defendant nor his passenger were wearing a helmet. There were pedestrians nearby, some of whom were using the pedestrian crossing as he rode through it. At approximately 1:17pm, the defendant rode on the East Derwent Highway near Otago Bay with the pillion passenger, still not wearing a helmet. A motorist was concerned and recorded the defendant on his mobile phone.
At approximately 5:23 pm, the defendant drove the stolen motorcycle across the Tasman Bridge towards the Eastern Shore. The passenger was wearing a black balaclava, and no helmet. The motorcycle abruptly changed lanes, causing another motorist to brake heavily to avoid a collision.
Police saw the motorcycle travelling along Rokeby Road, turning into Mockridge Road and while travelling behind it, attempted to intercept it by activating their emergency lights and sirens. The defendant accelerated away in order to evade police. He was travelling at approximately 60 – 70 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
Police continued to follow the motorcycle through Rokeby and Clarendon Vale, on to Goodwins Road, a populated suburban street. A marked police vehicle was parked in the intersection of Goodwins Road and Jardinelle Road, close to the centre line, to prevent other vehicles from entering the area.
The motorcycle approached the intersection on the correct side of the road. Constable Tim Meech was standing in that lane wearing a high-visibility vest. The defendant approached the intersection at an estimated speed of 100 km/h, before slowing to approximately 55 km/h.
Constable Meech directed the defendant to stop, giving a clear stop signal with his hand. The defendant accelerated. As he did so, Constable Meech moved to the left side of the police vehicle which was in the other lane. Simultaneously the defendant moved to the incorrect side of the road, in an attempt to get around the police officer and the police vehicle. The defendant’s intention was to get past the police officer and avoid his apprehension.
The motorcycle struck Constable Meech to the right side of his body. He became airborne and was flipped in the process. He was subjected to the forward momentum of the motorcycle. It is estimated that the motorcycle was travelling between 44 km/h and 57km/h when it struck Constable Meech. The motorcycle, along with the defendant, the pillion passenger and Constable Meech continued for approximately 7m after the point of the collision, before hitting the roadway and sliding. Constable Meech had travelled approximately 18 m from the point of impact to the area where he came to rest on the road.
Constable Meech hit his head on the roadway when he landed. The incident was captured on his body worn camera and also on mobile phone footage taken by a bystander. The defendant and his passenger fell off the bike and landed on the road. Constable Meech attempted to restrain the pillion passenger, however the passenger broke free, and he and the defendant ran from the scene. Both were arrested a short time later and taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital. The defendant did not seek medical treatment.
On 31 January, the defendant was interviewed by police. He said that as he approached the police officer standing on the road he weaved three or four times and then accelerated to try and get past around him. He was not trying to hit him. He said he did not want to pull over and wanted to get out of there because he had just been released from prison, and did not want to get caught driving whilst disqualified. Some of his comments showed a lack of remorse.
Constable Meech was admitted to hospital and treated for his injuries. He sustained extensive bruising and abrasions and pain to various parts of his body, his right upper arm, left forearm and hand, right lower leg and his spine. A splint was used to immobilise his arm. I have a victim impact statement. He described the impact and that it was like being hit by a brick wall, once the adrenaline wore off, he could not walk and the pain throughout his body was severe. He had tunnel vision. He continued to be in significant pain after his admission to hospital and had difficulty walking for a few weeks. He required physiotherapy for a period of approximately three months. In March of last year he underwent surgery to have several pieces of gravel removed from his elbow.
Constable Meech was subjected to a traumatic event, he was terrified for his life. He had time off work but when he returned he found various work situations very difficult. He experienced various symptoms such as fatigue, and difficulty sleeping and has consulted a psychologist. Constable Meech has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder, anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident. He is still struggling with these symptoms.
The defendant was 22 years of age at the time, 23 now. Since the beginning of 2016, he has accumulated the following relevant prior convictions: one for driving while disqualified, one for driving while exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit, three for driving without a licence, four convictions for evading police, one for reckless driving and one for dangerous driving, a conviction for escape and three for motor vehicle stealing and one for common assault. While on bail for the crimes before the Court today, he drove whilst disqualified on 6 July last year. His bail was revoked as a consequence.
At the time the defendant committed these crimes, he was subject to a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment which had been imposed by the Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2019. Moreover he had just finished serving a term of imprisonment for similar crimes. The same magistrate on 20 November had sentenced him to imprisonment for five months for evade police, motor vehicle stealing, reckless driving and a second charge of evade police and unlicensed driving. After serving that sentence, he was released from prison on 20 January 2020, just 10 days before the commission of the crimes before the Court today. On 5 August 2020, the Magistrates’ Court activated that suspended sentence and sentenced the defendant for other offending. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment from 1 July 2020. He completed serving that sentence on the 30 January 2021
Relevant to sentencing today, is that he has been in prison on remand or serving sentences for most of last year. I note that has been onerous due to COVID -19 restrictions which has limited the courses and rehabilitation programs that have been offered in prison, and generally made incarceration more difficult than it normally would be.
The defendant’s home life was difficult as a child. He was introduced to cannabis at a very young age. By 16 years of age he was using drugs such as methamphetamine as well. He was regularly using methamphetamine from 18 years of age. He developed a serious drug addiction. At the stage he committed these crimes he was significantly dependent on both cannabis and methamphetamine. Notwithstanding difficulties, he managed to complete high school with good literacy skills. He has obtained work from time to time as a labourer and completing unskilled work. He has undertaken various courses. He is in a de facto relationship, and he and his partner are now engaged to be married. Until his incarceration he was living between his partner’s house and his mother’s house. His partner has two young sons and the defendant has taken on an active paternal role with them.
Mr Mansfield was remanded in custody on these matters on 30 January last year, and granted bail on 11 May, amounting to 102 days. There is an additional period of 3 days in custody that is also to be attributed to these matters.
He is motivated to address his drug problem. He has completed an entry course for the comprehensive EQUIPS addiction course and is now on the waiting list for that course and also an anger management course. I note that Mr Mansfield has not previously been offered a comprehensive drug rehabilitation program. The time he has spent in custody has been time to reflect on where his life is heading and the choices he has been making. He has changed his priorities. He is aware that previous associates have been a negative influence and have contributed to his offending. He wants to live a quiet life with his partner and her children. He wants to find work and one day save enough to buy a house.
In relation to his offending I note the following matters. The theft of the motorcycle was opportunistic. The defendant and his passenger travelled to a friend’s house where they had the opportunity to borrow helmets, but they both declined. He was travelling to Clarendon Vale with the intention of giving the motorbike to a friend. When being followed by police the defendant did offer to drop off his passenger but the passenger encouraged him to keep travelling because he did not want to be arrested either. The period of driving was extensive, but the periods in which he was driving dangerously were relatively brief and not extensive. It must be noted that all of the driving exposed his passenger to considerable risk. A collision would expose a pillion passenger not wearing a helmet to a risk of serious harm or death.
When confronted by the police officer, the defendant acted out of a selfish concern for himself. Your concern was to avoid being arrested and then you made the decision to try and get around the police officer. As I have said, you did not intend to cause the officer harm and in fact tried to avoid colliding with him. I note that you were injured too and experienced the trauma of the collision. You experience nightmares and flashbacks. You are remorseful. You have pleaded guilty and saved the complainant the stress of having to give evidence.
I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report and that notes you have expressed remorse and regret for what had occurred. You are not suitable for community service, not because of a poor attitude but because of a back injury and your drug problem. You are assessed as requiring a very high level of intervention and support, and recommendations with a view to promoting your rehabilitation.
There are a number of crimes before the Court. The crimes overlap in terms of conduct and mental element, and the overlap must be reflected in the sentences imposed to avoid double punishment. The offence of evade police encompasses the defendant’s intention to avoid apprehension and the circumstances which led to the collision with Constable Meech. The dangerous driving includes a particular of driving in a manner intended to evade police and thereby striking a police officer and thus overlaps with the offence of evade police and the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm which involved elements of trying to prevent lawful apprehension and causing bodily harm by striking the officer with a motorcycle. The dangerous driving includes additional particulars and conduct not included in the other charges: failure to stop at a red traffic light at the intersection of Argyle Street and Collins Street, changing lanes without due care and attention on the Tasman Bridge, requiring other motorists to take evasive action to avoid a collision, and riding at an estimated speed of 60-70 km/h in a 50km/h zone on Mockridge Road. These particulars of dangerous driving take account of the circumstances and that you had a pillion passenger with no helmet.
I also point out that the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm has a somewhat misleading title, because it may encompass, as it does in this case, criminal conduct which does not involve an intention to cause bodily harm, and instead involves an intention to resist or prevent lawful apprehension.
This is a serious incident of dangerous driving involving a collision with a police officer who was carrying out his duty, trying to apprehend you, trying to keep his community safe. The sentence will reflect that you did not intend to hit him and did not intend him harm. Still, you drove close to a vulnerable pedestrian. There was a real prospect of a collision. Your act of driving put his life at risk. This collision could so easily have had fatal consequences or ended in catastrophic injury for Constable Meech and also your passenger, and of course, also for yourself. You could have been standing here today on charges arising from a double fatality. As things are, you are caused the officer significant trauma which he will no doubt suffer from for years to come.
Your dangerous driving earlier in the day exposed other pedestrians, motorists and your passenger to risk. Your wrong doing started when stole the motor cycle and decided to drive unlicensed and when you were disqualified.
The fact that you have prior convictions for evade police, reckless and dangerous driving is of course of significant concern to the Court and to the community as well.
However, I must also take into account that you are a young man with prospects. You have made a start down the path of reform. You have developed insight and determination not to reoffend. You are aware of the risk factors such as your drug use, and you are willing to cooperate with supports that will be made available to you.
Balancing these considerations, I reach the following conclusion. A gaol sentence is required, it must be lengthy and it must involve actual incarceration. However, I have decided that given the time you spent in custody last year, there is a prospect that that period will be effective in deterring you, noting your circumstances such as your attitude, your intention to cooperate and other positive factors, and therefore a substantial part of the sentence I impose today can be, and will be, suspended. You have recently experienced a court activating a suspended sentence. You know what happens if you reoffend while a suspended sentence is in place.
Mr Mansfield, on the crimes and offences before the Court today, I record convictions. For the crimes of dangerous driving and committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm I impose 22 months’ imprisonment backdated to 16 October 2020. I impose a period of licence disqualification of three years cumulative to current periods of disqualification.
For the offence of evading police I impose four months’ imprisonment cumulative to the term of 22 months, and disqualification for two years concurrent with the three year period of disqualification.
In relation to the offence of motor vehicle stealing, I impose three months’ imprisonment to be served concurrent with the term imposed of 22 months. For the offence of drive whilst disqualified I impose 3 months’ imprisonment concurrent with the 22 month term.
The end result is a cumulative period of imprisonment of 26 months. The sentence of 22 months is backdated to 16 October 2020. You must serve six months of that sentence. The balance is suspended on strict conditions for a period of two years from your release. All of the sentence for evade police is suspended on the same conditions, again for two years from release:
- You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment for the period of two years.
- You are subject to the supervision of a probation officer for the same period.
- The core conditions of a community correction order are imposed such as: You must report to a probation officer within 48 hours of your release at 114 Bathurst Street in Hobart. You must report to a probation officer as required; must comply with all the reasonable and lawful directions of your probation officer.
In addition to the usual core conditions that attach to a community correction order, there are other special conditions which reflect the recommendations in the report from Community Corrections:
- You must during the period of 2 years, which is the operational period of the order, attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer.
- You must submit to the supervision of a probation officer as directed by the probation officer.
- You must undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed.
- You must submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probation officer.
- You must submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
- You must attend, participate in and complete the EQUIPS addiction program as directed and any other drug rehabilitation program as directed by a probation officer.