STATE OF TASMANIA v ZIGGY ROBERT BRUNSKILL and GEORGIA ROSE ROSSITER 27 OCTOBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
A jury has found Ziggy Robert Brunskill and Georgia Rose Rossiter guilty of two counts of recklessly discharge a firearm and one count of aggravated assault by discharging a firearm in the direction of Zachary Sheriff on two occasions. Neither Mr Brunskill nor Ms Rossiter discharged the firearm or had possession of it. They have been found guilty on the basis of s 4 of the Criminal Code, known as the common purpose basis of liability.
The verdicts reveal that the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants and the person who discharged the firearm, formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose with one another, the crimes of recklessly discharging a firearm and aggravated assault were committed in the prosecution of that common purpose and that the crimes were of such a nature that their commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that common purpose.
I shall refer to the person who discharged the firearm as Mr “C”, not by his name as he is yet to stand trial.
I shall outline the crimes committed by Mr C, the involvement of the defendants and matters bearing on their criminal responsibility. These facts are based on the evidence on the trial and findings which I have found proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On 24 July 2021, Georgia Rossiter spent time with Mr “C” socialising. In evidence on the trial are photographs taken of her and Mr C posing with the firearm in question taken approximately an hour and a half before the offending. Mr Brunskill was not present or implicated in that activity.
Later, Mr Brunskill joined Ms Rossiter, and another woman and Mr C in a motor vehicle. This was at approximately 10pm, about half an hour before the crimes in question were committed. Mr C had the firearm with him in the back seat of the car but it may not have been seen by the other occupants. I find in the case of Ms Rossiter that, given her involvement with Mr C earlier, she knew that he had the firearm in the car. Mr Brunskill was the driver and did not have knowledge of the presence of the firearm. At this point there is no suggestion of a sinister shared purpose.
At some point in the car, Ms Rossiter received a message or communication on her mobile phone from a male person she knew who asked her to “go bash” Mr Sheriff’s girlfriend, Ms Lambert. Ms Rossiter decided she would do that, and shared her intention with Mr C and Mr Brunskill. The three then intended that Ms Rossiter would go to the home of Ms Lambert at Boiton Hill Road in Norwood and Ms Rossiter would physically confront Ms Lambert. For their own purposes, Mr C and Mr Brunskill decided to go with her. Plainly no good was going to come of the situation.
The three got out of the car and approached the house, the situation was shaping up to be a lawless ‘stand-over’ and it would have been obvious to both defendants in the minutes beforehand that not only was there to be a physical confrontation between Ms Rossiter and Ms Lambert but there was a prospect that violence may result in harm to her or others who came to her aid and that as a group of two males and one female they had the advantage.
Mr C had the firearm with him but Mr Brunskill was unaware of it then, it may well have been out of sight, perhaps tucked into his clothing. Ms Rossiter knew at least that if it was not with him he had access to it close by. Ms Rossiter knocked on the front door a number of times with Mr C and Mr Brunskill together off to one side.
What happened was then captured on security footage. When no one answered the door, Mr C can be seen with the firearm in his hand. He yells out abusively and moments later discharges the firearm through a glass panel beside the front door. Then moments later, he discharged it a second time, this time through the lounge room window. Mr C told the defendants to go, and the three left the property together.
It was in these moments before the gun was discharged for the first time, that the two defendants shared a common purpose with Mr C that the firearm that had been produced would be used to intimidate or threaten the occupants in some unspecified way such as brandishing or discharging the firearm.
It was in these moments that the common purpose was formed and carried out. Mr Brunskill and Ms Rossiter remained where they were at the front door sharing that purpose. What then followed and Mr C’s crimes were a probable consequence of that shared purpose.
The three fled on foot back to the car and the driver that was waiting for them. Mr Sherriff was in a heightened state of outrage at the firing of shots into his home and ran after them. As he followed them, Mr C twice discharged the firearm over his shoulder as he was running. His intention was to deter Mr Sherriff from pursuing them, his conduct was a reckless threatening gesture. Thereby Mr C committed an aggravated assault. These crimes were also a probable consequence of the shared purpose to present and use a firearm to intimidate or threaten.
The discharge of the firearm on four occasions was outrageous criminal conduct, posing a substantial threat to the lives of the occupants at the address and subsequently to Mr Sheriff out in the street. It caused alarm and consternation in the neighbourhood. Mr Sheriff has suffered anxiety arising from the incident. He felt unsafe in the house that he was living in to the extent that he has moved elsewhere.
The sentences I impose on Mr Brunskill and Ms Rossiter must distinguish them from the shooter and the shooter’s criminal responsibility as the principal. I accept that they did not intend the firearm to be discharged into the house and in the direction of Mr Sherriff. Their wrongdoing arises from joining in a purpose in the moments beforehand and in those moments the prosecution of a purpose involving the presentation of a firearm which would probably lead to these crimes. Also highly relevant is that both of them went to the house in the company of another male for the purpose of Ms Rossiter engaging in a physical confrontation with a female occupant which set the scene for these crimes.
I accept that Mr Brunskill’s motive in going to the house was to ensure no harm came to Ms Rossiter with whom he was then friends. But, I must also take into account that Ms Rossiter was an aggressor in the situation.
I turn now to the personal circumstances of each of the defendants. In the case of Mr Brunskill, he is 29 years of age. He has a long history of offending commencing as a youth. He has spent the majority of his adult life in prison. His offending history as an adult includes offences of dishonesty including burglary, stealing and motor vehicle stealing, driving offences including dangerous driving and evading police, possession of drugs, firearms offences involving illegal possession of firearms, multiple breaches of family violence orders attracting terms of imprisonment, intimidating a police officer and threatening a police officer, assault a public officer, and common assault. I highlight that that in 2020 he committed offences of illegal possession of firearm and possession of firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order, possession of a loaded firearm in a public place and possession of a shortened firearm, such conduct also giving rise to a breach of a family violence order as well as the prohibition order. He received a term of imprisonment for this conduct in March 2020. Then just one month before he committed the crimes before the court today he appeared in court on firearms offences involving illegal possession of firearms and contravening the firearms prohibition order, contravening a family violence order as well as other offences and received a drug treatment order with a custodial component of eight months’ imprisonment. Because of the crimes he then committed one month later, before the court for sentencing today, that drug treatment order was cancelled and in September last year he was sentenced to the custodial part of the sentence in full amounting to eight months imprisonment backdated to the date he was remanded in custody. I take into account that he was not eligible to apply for parole with respect to that eight month sentence. He has been in custody almost continuously, apart from approximately a fortnight, since 26 July 2021.
Having regard to the principle of totality, this lengthy period in custody has a moderating effect on the sentence I impose today particularly his eligibility for parole.
Mr Brunskill’s criminal history is closely tied to a serious drug addiction to amphetamines and methamphetamine. He was introduced to the drug as a young teenager and was dependent by 16 or 17 years of age. I note in his favour that while on the drug treatment order he demonstrated a willingness to address his addiction and also insight into the destructive effect of his addiction on his life.
In relation to his childhood, his parents separated when he was young and he and his brother lived with his grandparents until they were about 13. This was a supportive home environment. His grandparents are there to provide support for him and his grandfather attended each day of the trial. He is welcome to return to their home if he respects their rules.
In his adolescent years he made attempts to engage with his mother which were unsuccessful. He went to live with his father in what was evidently an appalling environment for an adolescent in their formative years involving violence and neglect. He was evicted and became homeless.
He has two children with a former partner who was the protected party in relation to the family violence order I have mentioned. Mr Brunskill and Ms Rossiter have a six month old child, which may provide added incentive once he is released to address his drug addiction.
He has mental health concerns which have been assessed during periods of imprisonment. During past periods of incarceration there have been suicide attempts. These mental health concerns warrant further assessment and I expect that should occur while he is in prison. He has an outstanding claim for abuse suffered while he was a youth at Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
I now turn to Ms Rossiter and her circumstances.
Her involvement in the crimes was more extensive and she had knowledge when she was at the front door that Mr C had access to the firearm close by. She was, as I have said, the aggressor in the situation, readily agreeing to physically confront a young woman who had done nothing to hurt her.
In the first police interview she denied involvement in the matter but shortly afterwards in a second police interview made full and frank admissions. It is evident from Ms Rossiter’s distress during that second interview that there has been punishment for her in the investigation and court process.
Ms Rossiter is 27 years of age and the mother and primary carer of two children aged seven years and six months. Her future plans revolve around her children and she wants to be the best parent that she possibly can be.
She has some prior convictions but none for violence or firearms offences. They are relevant because they indicate a drug problem from 2018.
At the time of offending she was under the influence of alcohol and drugs, ecstasy. That is no excuse but it provides some explanation for her agreement to the request that she received to bash Ms Lambert.
At the time of offending, Ms Rossiter had a drug problem. She is currently subject to a six month home detention order imposed by the Magistrates Court on 4 July this year and under that order Ms Rossiter and her children are living with her parents. I have received an oral report from Ms Rossiter’s case manager and I am informed that Ms Rossiter has responded well to a close level of supervision provided under the order. Community corrections have been focussing on her issues of substance abuse and she is regarded as making steady progress. A test carried out recently was clean. She has been referred to Alcohol and Drug Services to provide another level of support. There are mental health concerns and these are to be addressed as well. Ms Rossiter is regarded as suitable for a further home detention order and if that order is made ongoing supervision and drug testing will be provided.
Ziggy Robert Brunskill and Georgia Rose Rossiter, I have made comments about the gravity of these crimes and your criminal responsibility for them. There is a need for the sentence to be effective as a general deterrent in order to send a message to others who may be tempted to join in crimes involving the use of firearms. However, the sentences I impose upon each of you should carefully reflect the limits of your criminal responsibility. The sentences I will impose will not approach the kind of sentence which I would have imposed if you were the shooter or your liability had involved an intention to commit the crimes of recklessly discharging a firearm or aggravated assault.
Mr Brunskill, while you are not to be sentenced for your criminal record, your prior convictions and particularly the nature of your recent offending reveal there is a strong need in your case for a sentence which will be effective as a personal deterrent. The sentence must be a heavy one. While that is so, I also consider that there are prospects that you may reform and recently you have expressed and shown a willingness to address your very serious drug addiction. The sentence I will impose today will seek to achieve this goal by allowing an opportunity to apply for parole.
I record a conviction on each count and the effect of the sentences will be two years imprisonment backdated to 26 June 2022. You will not to be eligible for parole until you have served a period of 13 months imprisonment.
I impose the following sentences:
Count 1 is 14 months imprisonment backdated to 26 June 2022
Count 2 is 14 months imprisonment concurrent with count 1 from 26 June 2022.
Count 3 is 10 months imprisonment cumulative to count 1.
The concurrent sentences on count one and count two reflects that they arose from a course of conduct and the period of 14 months reflects the totality of that course of conduct.
For counts 1 and 2, I allow a non-parole period of 7 months imprisonment and for count 3, a non-parole period of 6 months imprisonment.
The total period that you are liable to serve for these sentences of imprisonment is two years from 26 June 2022 and the total period in relation to those sentences that you are to serve before you are to be eligible to apply for parole is 13 months from that date.
Ms Rossiter, you have no prior convictions of relevance and you are making good progress under a home detention order. I am satisfied in your case that a further home detention order is appropriate. Home detention is an effective general deterrent and in curtailing your liberty for the period imposed there is significant punishment involved. If not for this sentence of home detention a term of imprisonment would have been imposed.
You are convicted of all counts and I impose a global sentence of a home detention order for a period of 12 months cumulative to the home detention order that is currently in place of six months. The premises that have been identified will be specified in the order. I impose all of the core conditions under s 42AD of the Sentencing Act.