STATE OF TASMANIA v PAUL WAYNE SIMPSON and PAUL STANLEY SIMPSON 30 JULY 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE CUTHBERTSON J
Paul Wayne Simpson and Paul Stanley Simpson, a jury has found each of you guilty of crimes arising from events which occurred on 16 April 2022. In your case, Paul Wayne Simpson or Mr Simpson Jnr, you have been found guilty of wounding and demanding property with menaces with intent to steal. Paul Stanley Simpson, or Mr Simpson Snr, you have been found guilty of stealing $1,000 cash. In addition, Mr Simpson Jnr, you have pleaded guilty to charges of possession or use of a firearm or firearm part while subject to a firearms prohibition order and of possession of a stolen firearm.
The offences of wounding, demanding property with menaces and stealing arise from an incident which took place at Mr Simpson Snr’s home. It is now my task to make findings of fact consistent with the jury’s verdicts. Facts adverse to you must be proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt. As to the offences of wounding and demand property with menaces, the primary issue on the trial was whether it was Mr Simpson Jnr who wounded Mr Campbell, whether he then demanded cash from Mr Kress and the circumstances in which that occurred. The issue in relation to the charge stealing was whether Mr Kress freely agreed to hand over cash to Mr Simpson Snr. Given the jury’s verdicts, they must have substantially accepted beyond reasonable doubt Mr Kress’s and Mr Campbell’s evidence of what occurred. Accordingly, I will sentence you both on the basis that the events occurred largely as described by them.
Mr Simpson Snr and Mr Simpson Jnr are father and son. Mr Kress and Mr Campbell were friends. Mr Campbell was also a friend Mr Simpson Snr. They had known each other for between 40 and 50 years. Mr Campbell also knew Mr Simpson Jnr, having met him through his father. Mr Kress had met Mr Simpson Snr on a few occasions but had not previously met Mr Simpson Jnr.
I am satisfied the background to these offences commenced with Mr Kress’s interest in purchasing a firearm to kill wallaby for meat. He did not have a licence at the time, although he had previously held one and had owned firearms. He had discussed his interest in purchasing a new firearm with Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell mentioned this to Mr Simpson Snr. On 16 April 2022, Mr Simpson Snr rang Mr Campbell and told him that he knew someone that might have a firearm for sale. Arrangements were made to meet this person at Mr Simpson Snr’s house later that day.
Mr Kress and Mr Campbell attended Mr Simpson Snr’s house together. Shortly after arriving, Mr Simpson Jnr came to the house. Mr Simpson Jnr discussed the firearm he had for sale with Mr Kress. I am not satisfied that Mr Simpson Jnr did in fact have a firearm for sale. I am, however, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Simpson Jnr showed Mr Kress an image on his mobile phone of the firearm he claimed he had for sale. Mr Kress was not interested in the firearm. The firearm he was shown was a long rifle and too powerful for his purposes. Having told Mr Simpson Jnr he was not interested in purchasing a firearm of that type, I am satisfied that Mr Simpson Jnr became agitated. He accused Mr Kress and Mr Campbell of mucking him around. After briefly leaving the house, he returned with a bladed weapon, potentially a meat cleaver or a tomahawk. Shortly after returning to the house, he struck Mr Campbell to the head while he was sitting on the couch in the lounge room. Mr Kress was sitting next to Mr Campbell at the time. This caused a wound to Mr Campbell’s head which commenced bleeding heavily.
There was conflicting evidence as to whether Mr Simpson Snr was in the lounge room when Mr Campbell was struck. Mr Campbell said Mr Simpson Snr was in the kitchen. Mr Kress said Mr Simpson Snr was present in the lounge room. While I prefer Mr Kress’s evidence on this issue, and suspect that Mr Campbell was attempting to protect his old friend, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Simpson Snr was in the lounge room at the time Mr Campbell was struck. I am, however, satisfied that he was in the lounge room within a short period of time after the assault and knew that violence had been inflicted on Mr Campbell by his son. It must have been obvious that this was the case. There was blood in the lounge room. Mr Campbell left the house seeking help shortly after being hit to the head. He left a trail of blood down the driveway and at other locations in the house and yard.
After Mr Campbell left the house, Mr Simpson Jnr demanded money from Mr Kress for his troubles. I accept Mr Kress’s evidence that Mr Simpson Jnr threatened to take his knee caps off and pushed him on to the chair. Mr Kress told Mr Simpson Jnr that he did not have any money on him. Mr Simpson Jnr told him that he could go to the bank and get some. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Simpson Snr was in the room at the time those demands were made. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Simpson Jnr told Mr Simpson Snr that he should go with Mr Kress while he withdrew the money.
Mr Kress then drove to a nearby ATM in his car. Mr Simpson Snr went with him and was sitting in the passenger seat. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Simpson Snr got out of the car while Mr Kress withdrew money from the ATM and stood within a couple of metres of him. This took some time. After he withdrew the money, Mr Kress gave it to Mr Simpson Snr who then left. The jury were directed that in order to find Mr Simpson Snr guilty of stealing, they had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Kress did not freely agree to the money being taken and that he handed the money over only because of the force and threats he was subjected to earlier. They were also directed that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Simpson Snr intended to permanently deprive Mr Kress of the money and that his taking or obtaining possession of the money was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary decent people. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, I find that Mr Simpsons Snr was aware that Mr Kress had been threatened by his son who had also inflicted significant violence on Mr Campbell in Mr Kress’s presence. I am also satisfied that Mr Kress handed over the money as a consequence of those threats. Taking possession of the money in those circumstances, of which Mr Simpsons Snr was aware, was clearly dishonest.
Police were eventually contacted about this matter. In the course of their investigation, they obtained a warrant to search Mr Simpson Jnr’s residence in Lenah Valley. During that search, police found two firearms in a safe in Mr Simpson Jnr’s bedroom. The first was a .22LR calibre Voere self-loading rifle with barrel action (Rheinmetall 55 model). The second firearm was a .22 LR calibre Puma bolt action repeating shot sawn off rifle (Hunter model). The Voere rifle was disassembled. On reassembly, it constituted a complete firearm. Both firearms were tested and successfully fired ammunition as designed. Investigations established that the Puma sawn off rifle had previously been stolen from a property at Old Beach on 15 October 2021. At the time of Mr Simpson Jnr’s possession of these items, he was subject to a firearms prohibition order that had been served on 23 November 2021. During a police record of interview, Mr Simpson Jnr said that the rifles belonged to a third party and were being stored in his gun safe temporarily.
The blow to Mr Campbell’s head not only caused the wound which required suturing, but also resulted in a mildly depressed fracture to the left temporal bone which indicates the significant force used by Mr Simpson Jnr. Fortunately, there was no intercranial haemorrhage. Mr Campbell was, however, required to take medical seizure prophylaxis for one week as a result of the injury.
I have been provided with victim impact statements from both Mr Campbell and Mr Kress. Both Mr Campbell and Mr Kress had pre-existing health issues at the time of these events. Mr Campbell has had some long-term impacts from his injury. He was unable to drive initially due to his seizure risk. He has not driven since. The State does not suggest his ongoing inability to drive is the result of the wound. His mental health has been impacted, however. He is hypervigilant, which has impacted his ability to leave his home and engage in the community as he once did. Mr Kress has experienced a deterioration in his health since this incident. He attributes that deterioration to aspects of the events that were not the subject of evidence before the Court. I accept, however, that the incident must have been distressing for Mr Kress. There have been interim restraint orders in place for the protection of both complainants in relation to Mr Simpson Jnr. There is no suggestion that he has breached the protective aspects of those orders.
Mr Simpson Jnr, you are now 37 years old. You were 33 years old at the time of these offences. You have an extensive record of prior convictions including for serious offences of violence. You have spent the majority of your adult life in custody. You were first sentenced by this Court in June 2007 on a charge of armed robbery committed when you were 17 years old. You received a nine month period of imprisonment which was partially suspended. On 29 August 2008, you were sentenced for the crime of manslaughter, an offence you committed when you were 18 years old. You received a seven-and-a-half-year sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. On that occasion, you caused the victim’s death by striking him to the head with a baseball bat. That blow caused a depressed fracture to the skull and swelling to the brain. The comments on passing sentence record that you bragged about your conduct during the course of telephone conversations from the prison with your father. In December 2014, you were again sentenced by this Court on three counts of Criminal Code assault and a charge of attempted robbery. You received a period of two and a half years’ imprisonment. You were on parole for the manslaughter offence when you committed those crimes. On 23 October 2018, you were sentenced on a charge of wounding to a period of three and a half years’ imprisonment. Again, you were on parole at the time of committing that offence. The wounding on that occasion was a family violence offence. You threw a knife at your former partner while she was holding a child, causing a six-centimetre laceration to her face. You were granted parole on the wounding charge on 19 July 2021 until 8 September 2022. The offences for which you fall to be sentenced today occurred while you were on parole.
In addition to this significant history of violent offending, you have many prior matters for offences of aggravated robbery, dishonesty, motor vehicle stealing, drive while disqualified, breaches of bail and related offences, common assault, drug driving, escape, and violent offending towards police. You had no prior matters for firearm offences. Your parole was revoked as a consequence of this offending. Prior to your release, you were made the subject of an interim high risk offender order. A high risk offender order was later made. Your record of prior convictions indicate that you breached that order on numerous occasions. Those breaches, together with other matters, including for possession of firearms in contravention of a firearms prohibition order, resulted in you receiving a period of eight months’ imprisonment on 17 November 2025. While these offences are not prior matters, they are relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. They indicate ongoing issues with the use of drugs and an inability to abide by conditions of court orders including firearms prohibition notices. I consider your prospects of rehabilitation are poor. While those recent matters do not include offences of overt violence, it is too soon to tell whether you are capable of moderating your behaviour in the community in the future. There are some periods of custody that you have served that have not been allocated to other sentences, and I intend to backdate the sentence that I will impose in order to reflect those periods.
In respect of Mr Simpson Snr, you are now 76 years old. You have stable accommodation where you have lived for the past 15 years. You left school in grade 9 and subsequently held a number of labouring jobs. You married in 1989. That marriage lasted for approximately 20 years and produced a number of children, including your co-offender. You have been in receipt of a disability support pension for the past 30 years as a result of a closed head injury you received when you were young. You have prior matters for dishonesty. You were first imprisoned for burglary and stealing in 1971. In that same year you were sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for robbery with violence. You appear to have been regularly sentenced for dishonest offending until 2012 when you were initially sentenced to a drug treatment order for numerous offences, including two counts of unlawful possession of property. It appears you struggled with that order and ultimately you were sentenced to a period of five months’ imprisonment in May 2013. Since then, you have been convicted and fined for charges of stealing and unlawful possession of property in 2020 and 2021. In addition, you have received periods of imprisonment in the past for offences of violence and driving matters.
Turning to Mr Simpson Jnr’s offending, it was extremely serious. Both complainants were vulnerable. Mr Campbell had reduced mobility due to health issues. Mr Kress was elderly and also had significant health issues. Your resort to significant violence in the circumstances of this case is difficult to comprehend. The potential for Mr Campbell to have been more seriously injured was obvious. On the most benign version of events, there had been no promise to purchase a firearm from you. You were not entitled to expect that any such transaction would take place. Your conduct suggests that you were determined to extract money from Mr Kress, whether for the purchase of a firearm or otherwise. You were on parole at the time for serious violent offending. In light of your record of prior convictions and conduct on this occasion, it is clear that you pose a significant risk of committing such offences in the future. General deterrence, punishment, denunciation of your conduct and vindication of the victims are important sentencing considerations. In addition, specific deterrence and protection of the community assume particular importance in light of your risk of violent offending. The only sentence available in the circumstances, is one of imprisonment. The sentence will be backdated to take into account the periods of time you have spent in custody that have not yet been allocated to any other sentence. In my view, the firearms offences are also very serious. Your possession of the firearms breached the clear conditions of the prohibition notice. You have never held a firearms licence; you are most unlikely to be entitled to hold such a licence in the future given your very significant history of offending. The possession of firearms by someone with your history of violent offending is a matter of considerable concern. I will make an order for parole eligibility, but it will be one that exceeds the minimum period available in light of all the circumstances of the case and my view of your prospects of rehabilitation. I am not prepared to conclude that you have no prospects. The Parole Board will be in a better position to assess those prospects once you have served the minimum term that justice requires.
Mr Simpson Snr, as I understand the carefully framed submissions made on your behalf, your offending occurred against the background of you fearing, to some extent, your son’s capacity to cause violence. Although I accept you may have been in a difficult situation, these were circumstances of your own making. You were the one that connected Mr Simpson Jnr to the two complainants. With your knowledge of your son’s history, this was a very risky thing to do. I am, however, required to sentence you for the offence for which you have been found guilty which is a single count of stealing of $1,000. In my view, the offence, in light of your history of dishonest offending, warrants the imposition of a period of imprisonment, however, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to suspend the sentence to deter you from committing any further offence of this type in the future.
Accordingly, I make the following orders. You are each convicted of the crimes of which you have been found guilty or to which you have pleaded guilty on the indictment.
Paul Wayne Simpson, on the charges of wounding and demand property with menaces, you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four years, backdated to 23 January 2026. On the firearms offences, you are sentenced to six months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the other matters. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served three years of that sentence.
Paul Stanley Simpson, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months. That sentence is wholly suspended for a period of two years on condition that you commit no further offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition, the sentence must be activated unless it would be unjust.