STATE OF TASMANIA v AARON PURSELL-STEPHENSON 27 FEBRUARY 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count on indictment of causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving. I have also agreed to deal with pleas of guilty to a number of related summary matters on complaint number 11404 of 2024, namely charge number 1 – evade police, charge number 2 – use unregistered motor vehicle, charge number 3 – use a motor vehicle with no premium cover, charge number 4 – drive whilst licence suspended, and charge number 5 – driver failing to ensure passenger wearing seatbelt.
On 30 August 2024 at around 11:00pm, the defendant was with his friend Jaiden Bennett, the complainant, driving in the defendant’s car, a black Ford XR6. The complainant drove the car to Derwent Park where there were friends Cody James, Seth Hull and Jordan Panton, who were all known to the complainant. After they arrived, the defendant decided he wanted to drive the car again. The complainant got in the front passenger side and the three other men decided to join them and got in the back. They knew the defendant in passing but were not friends with him.
At the time he was driving, the defendant was the holder of a provisional licence which was valid until 14 December 2024. However, his licence was suspended due to a loss of demerit points. The registration on the vehicle had expired on 25 August 2024, which meant the insurance premium had also expired.
At around 11:15pm, the defendant was driving along Derwent Park Road, near the intersection of Central Avenue. At the time, Constable Hannah Vinen and Constable Colrain were in a police vehicle which was stationary at the intersection of Derwent Park Road and the Brooker Highway. They were on the eastern side of the intersection and stopped at a red traffic light. From her location, Constable Vinen heard a revving noise and observed a large cloud of smoke coming from the accused’s vehicle on the opposite side of the highway to her. She activated the emergency lights to breach the intersection and as they did, the lights controlling their vehicle turned green. They entered the intersection and saw the accused’s vehicle travel west on Derwent Park Road towards Gormanston Road.
The complainant later told police that the defendant started to speed away when he saw the lights on the police vehicle.
Constable Colrain estimated the defendant was traveling more than 90km per hour and did not believe he was going to stop his vehicle. As a result, they made the decision to stop following the vehicle and turned off their emergency lights and sirens. The complainant recalled that as they were driving off, the defendant overtook another car as they went past a school on Derwent Park Road and continued to accelerate.
The defendant continued to drive his vehicle at a fast speed on Derwent Park Road. The roadway was wet from recent rain and the visibility was poor. The defendant approached the cycle way with the railway lines, which has a clear crest adjacent to the railway lines. The vehicle hit the railway lines. At the time, the defendant was estimated to be travelling at approximately 100km per hour. The vehicle became airborne. The defendant lost control of the vehicle once it hit the roadway again. The vehicle spun a number of times and continued to travel in a westerly direction before colliding with a street light pole.
Police arrived on the scene within minutes. They were flagged down by the defendant who was standing by the front driver’s side door. The vehicle was significantly damaged, and the impact had caused the light pole to snap and lean in towards the roadway. The three males in the back managed to get out of the car. Cody James’ face was badly cut and bleeding heavily. He also had cuts to his neck. The other males were not injured aside from minor cuts and scrapes. Police body worn camera footage, which commenced from the time they arrived at the scene, showed all three males as distressed, in shock and expressing considerable anger towards the defendant.
The complainant was trapped in the front seat of the car. He had obvious significant injuries to his legs. Fire and ambulance personnel arrived at the scene. They assisted in extracting the complainant from the vehicle. He was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital by ambulance. Tas Networks arrived at the scene to secure the light pole ,which had to be removed due to the damage sustained.
The defendant was taken to hospital where he was required to submit to a blood test, which was negative for drugs and alcohol. He then went with police to the Hobart station where he participated in a video interview. The defendant agreed that he was driving the vehicle and was taking his friends for a drive. One of the passengers told him he saw a police vehicle. The defendant denied seeing a police vehicle at any time except for when they attended the scene to assist with the crash. This statement is contrary to what the defendant told police at the scene, which was captured on the body worn camera footage. The defendant, when asked by police, “did you see us turn our lights on?” replied “yes, I went into panic. ..they said floor it and then I lost control”. The defendant was charged and bailed.
The complainant remained in hospital until 3 September 2024. He sustained fractures to the right 2 to 6 anterolateral ribs, with pulmonary contusion. He also had a mid-shaft femoral fracture which required surgery and an Intra Medullary Nail insertion. He also suffered from an open fracture to his ring finger which required surgery to repair. After he was discharged, the complainant required follow up with the plastic surgery team in regard to his finger and the orthopaedic surgeon in relation to his leg. The complainant continued to see his GP who advised him to discontinue working in his usual occupation as a mechanic. He suffers from ongoing pain. Cody James required stiches to the cut on his chin and upper lip. He had no ongoing issues.
At the time of the accident, the road was very wet from recent rain. The vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the time was light to medium and it was dark. The road was in good condition, however, it is a main throughfare and is used extensively by light and heavy vehicles.
I have been provided with a victim impact statement which is relatively short and should be read. In it, he states:
“At the time of the accident, I was not working for an employer, however, I was doing mechanical work on my own. I was hoping to secure employment but that is not going to happen now because of the ongoing issues I have from the accident. I cannot stand up for a long periods of time without my leg hurting. I cannot walk on it for long either without it hurting.
I was admitted to Calvary about 3-4 months ago to get the pin taken out of my leg because medical staff thought that might help ease the pain. The operation didn’t work. I still have pain down my left leg when I walk or stand up for too long. The doctors are still trying to work out why it is hurting. I am having another bone scan in November. I have to go to a lot of doctor’s appointments because of the accident.
My finger nail was ripped off my left hand ring finger and the finger was broken. I have almost fully recovered from that injury, however it was very painful.
Before the accident I was pretty good friends with Aaron. Now he doesn’t talk to me. He hasn’t really spoken to me since the accident.”
He states, “I cannot trust anyone when I am a passenger in a car.” That is not conceded by the defendant. He says, “I can’t go anywhere without thinking I will be in another accident.”
The defendant’s prior convictions comprise only some relatively minor driving offences. He is a 24-year-old man who lives in a rental property in Herdsman’s Cove. He grew up in a close family in the Herdsman’s Cove area and his parents live near him. He had an unremarkable youth, progressing through Bridgewater High School and completed year 11 before leaving school to commence work. He worked as a brick labourer for two years before ending that in favour of a job working on fishing boats. He did this for two years before returning to labouring and then setting up his own business working on vehicles. He is presently working at Derwent Valley Auto Repairs as a mechanic.
He lives with his partner of more than four years who also works full time. She used to work at as an employee at a factory but now works from home as a beauty therapist and has her own salon at their house. In short, he comes from a prosocial and supportive family, reflecting good rehabilitative prospects.
Relevant to mitigation I accept the submissions of the defendant’s counsel that his plea may be considered as an early plea of guilty, that there are no aggravating features of alcohol or drugs present, and that the driving, although with terrible consequences, was of a relatively short duration.
Counsel for the State concedes that this was a very short period of driving, albeit highly reckless and immature but notes that the defendant was showing off in his vehicle and drove it at a speed when he knew the police were in the area. He did not want to be pulled over because he did not have a licence at the time. Moreover, the conditions were poor at the time with the road being wet from rain. I also accept the State’s submission that general deterrence should be given significant weight. This is particularly so in view of the consequences for the complainant, as disclosed in his victim impact statement.
As to the submission that he was avoiding police, I note that I am required to sentence separately for the offence of evade police. And as to any period of disqualification, I note that the defendant has not driven since the offence due to a bail condition which is some 18 months ago.
I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report and I note that the defendant is considered suitable for home detention. In all of the circumstances that I have just set out, I am of the view that home detention is the most appropriate sentencing outcome.
On the charge of evade police, the defendant is convicted and I impose a sentence of three months’ imprisonment, which sentence I wholly suspend on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months.
In respect of all of the remaining charges to which the defendant has pleaded guilty, I impose a single sentence of 12 months’ home detention.
The order will contain all the core conditions contained in s 42AD(1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997 to be imposed, including with reference to s 42AD(1)(g) and (h), the following specific conditions:
- you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device;
- during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:
(a) you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;
(b) you must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;
(c) you must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by:
(i) a police officer;
(ii) a probation officer or prescribed officer; or
(iii) any other person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring.
The order will also contain the following special conditions:
- you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [address redacted] at all times except during the times of 10:00am to 3:00pm daily, unless approved by a probation officer;
- you must attend the Hobart Community Corrections office at 75 Liverpool Street, for induction onto this order. You must attend this service for induction during normal business and no later than 10:00am on the business day after this order was made;
- you must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition, an active mobile phone service, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times;
- you must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer;
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include:
- Any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001;
- Any medication containing an Opiate, Benzodiazepine, Bupropion, Hydrochloride or Pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication; and
- you must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
Across all offences, the defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of six months from today.