STATE OF TASMANIA v BRIAN NATHAN STREETS 21 MARCH 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Streets, you have been found guilty by a jury of the crimes of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm and stealing. The charges arose out of an incident that occurred at the home of a Mr Andrew Dawson 1 June 2021. Mr Dawson was charged with these crimes but passed away prior to the trial. I need to make findings of fact consistent with the jury’s verdicts. I proceed on the basis that the evidence of the complainant, Mr Nicky Stubbs, must have been accepted by the jury to a substantial degree.
Sometime on 1 June 2021, Mr Stubbs contacted Mr Dawson and made arrangements to attend his residence with a view to doing some sort of drug deal. He rode his bike to that residence at about 8pm and entered the shed. Both you and Mr Dawson were inside the shed. Mr Stubbs sat on a couch in the shed and both you and Mr Dawson immediately set upon him, using metal bars to strike him to the face, head and arms. Each of you had hold of some type of bar. Mr Stubbs described that one of the bars was denser and heavier than the other. I cannot determine who held the heavier bar, but I am satisfied that both of you used metal bars to strike Mr Stubbs numerous times. I accept Mr Stubbs’ evidence that he was struck at least ten times with the metal poles. At one point Mr Dawson suggested the beating was because Mr Stubbs had stolen money from someone, an assertion Mr Stubbs denied, and he asked you to stop. Neither of you did so.
During the assault, you took from Mr Stubbs the backpack he had with him which contained some keys, his mobile phone and a wallet. The keys were later returned via a third person but the backpack, wallet and phone were stolen. I cannot find on the evidence that any of these items were kept by you personally. It is most likely that Mr Dawson kept the wallet, and the phone was destroyed.
Another aspect of the violence which you and Mr Dawson perpetrated upon Mr Stubbs, which was particularly humiliating and painful, was to force him to get onto the ground and crawl to a corner of the shed. Because of the injuries Mr Stubbs had already sustained by this point, it was a difficult exercise. Mr Stubbs was curled up in a foetal position in the corner of the shed when petrol was poured onto him. He was then made to crawl to another part of the shed where you fired a taser like weapon in his direction. The projectile did not strike Mr Stubbs but landed adjacent to where he was lying on the floor. The use of such a weapon undoubtedly added to the fear and intimidation Mr Stubbs was feeling. At another point during the assault, Mr Dawson kicked Mr Stubbs in the head. Whilst you did not kick him in the head, you nevertheless are criminally responsible for all aspects of the violence. This was a joint attack by you and Mr Dawson upon Mr Stubbs. You either inflicted the blows personally or you were aiding and abetting Mr Dawson as he was inflicting blows upon Mr Stubbs.
Fortunately, Mr Dawson’s daughter arrived at the residence which brought the violence to an end. Mr Dawson directed Mr Stubbs to go outside and wash his face, presumably so his daughter would not become aware of the harm that had been caused to Mr Stubbs. Mr Stubbs took this opportunity to jump the fence and escape. He ran to a nearby residence. The ambulance was called. Mr Stubbs was taken to the North West Regional Hospital.
He was left with significant injuries. He had a laceration to the back of his head, which was described as a deep, jagged wound. There was swelling to the left eye socket and a fractured cheek bone. There was significant bi-lateral forearm swelling and tenderness consistent with Mr Stubbs having his arms up over his head in a defensive motion. There was swelling and a deep haematoma to the back of the head. A CT scan revealed significant brain bruising and multiple areas of bleeding within and around the brain. One of the bruises to the brain was four millimetres in depth. Mr Stubbs was transferred to the Royal Hobart Hospital to be in the care of the neuro-surgical team. He was hospitalised for over a fortnight, and eventually discharged on 16 June 2021. I am not told of any residual difficulties from which Mr Stubbs suffers, save that he experienced pressure building up in his ears, which was painful, for quite some time following the assault.
I have a victim impact statement from Mr Stubbs. Beyond the physical injuries, he has been badly affected by this crime. He was scared for his life. He thought he might die. He relocated from Tasmania following the incident. It was difficult for him to leave behind everything that was familiar to him, but ultimately the relocation led to a more positive and stable lifestyle for him. He experienced increased feelings of anxiousness and worry returning to Tasmania for the trial.
The defendant is now 43 years of age. He has a lengthy and concerning criminal history. He has been a persistent offender since the 1990’s. He has been sent to gaol on many occasions. His record of prior convictions reflects an appalling history for driving offences and for matters of dishonesty. He also has nine prior convictions for common assault and two prior convictions for criminal code assault. It is trite to say that whilst the defendant is not to be re-sentenced for his prior convictions, specific deterrence and denunciation has an important role to play in the sentencing exercise. I am told the defendant has recently experienced a significant medical episode that has given him pause to reflect upon his lifestyle and criminal ways. In April 2023 he suffered a stroke. It left him with weakness on his right side and memory difficulties. He feels physically weak and is vulnerable in the prison environment. Whilst I accept that such an event has the potential to be a catalyst for change, whether the defendant, in fact, brings about any change once released, remains to be seen. The persistence of his past criminal offending and his reticence to bring about change in the past, even when offered the opportunity to do so, means any claim that rehabilitation is genuinely desired is justifiably met with a degree of scepticism.
It is of relevance that the defendant is currently serving a period of imprisonment and has been since 21 January 2022. On 11 April 2022, I sentenced Mr Streets for the crime of dangerous driving and some other associated summary offences. The total term of imprisonment imposed was 22 months, commencing on 21 January 2022. Mr Streets completed that sentence in November 2023, but was not released because on 9 June 2022, the Magistrates Court imposed two separate six month sentences of imprisonment upon the defendant, cumulative to each other and cumulative to the sentence I imposed in April 2022. The end result is that Mr Streets has been in custody since 21 January 2022 and will be serving sentences until November 2024. Because Mr Streets is currently serving a relatively substantial sentence of imprisonment, I am obligated to take a more lenient course than I might otherwise in sentencing for this matter so as to reflect principles of totality. That said, it remains necessary for the sentence to reflect the severity of the criminal conduct in which Mr Streets engaged.
There are a number of serious features of this crime. It was a joint attack upon an individual using weapons. Two metal poles and some sort of taser device were used throughout the attack. Petrol was poured upon the complainant. This must have exacerbated the fear he felt and given rise to a genuine concern as to what might happen to him. It appears as though the motivation for the attack was some sort of vigilante response to a belief that Mr Stubbs had taken money from someone. Resort to any sort of vigilante justice is to be condemned. This was a prolonged and violent attack. Based on the arrival time of police to the neighbour’s residence where Mr Stubbs sought refuge, it is likely he was present at the shed where the assault occurred for in the vicinity of an hour. Whilst I cannot conclude violence was being offered to him for the whole of that time, I am satisfied the violence commenced very shortly after his arrival at the shed and continued at varying levels of intensity throughout his time there. Until Mr Dawson’s daughter arrived he was unable to leave. It must have been a distressing and frightening experience for him. There was a degree of pre-meditation associated with the crime as is apparent from the fact that, as soon as Mr Stubbs arrived in the shed, the attack commenced. Mr Stubbs was left with significant injuries. In my view, it is fortunate the injuries were not more severe given the appalling behaviour the defendant and Mr Dawson engaged in. Moreover, it is fortunate Mr Dawson’s daughter arrived when she did, otherwise I suspect the end result may have been far worse.
Crimes of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm are generally regarded as very serious in the range of violent offences because of the specific intent involved, in this case to cause grievous bodily harm, to maim, disfigure or disable Mr Stubbs. In sentencing crimes of this nature, a lengthy prison sentence is almost invariably imposed. The defendant is not entitled to the mitigation a plea of guilty would have attracted. General deterrence is a weighty consideration. The Court must make very clear the consequences of serious violent crime in the hope that it will encourage the defendant and others who may be minded to behave similarly, to think better of it into the future. The defendant’s conduct is to be condemned and punished.
To take account of the fact that the defendant is already serving a substantial period of imprisonment, I intend to run a portion of the term of imprisonment I impose today concurrently with the sentence he is currently serving.
Brian Nathan Streets, you are convicted of the crimes of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm and stealing. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years. Six months of that sentence will operate concurrently with the sentence you are currently serving. The balance three and a half years will operate cumulatively. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 30 months of that period of imprisonment.