STATE OF TASMANIA v BENJAMIN LUKE COPPLEMAN AND
ANDREW SIMON DALE STUBBS 27 MAY 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Benjamin Luke Coppleman and Andrew Simon Dale Stubbs have pleaded guilty to one count of assault.
On Sunday 26 May 2019, at approximately 3:30am, the complainant Harrison James Thomas, 40 years of age, was in King Street, Devonport. He had just left the House Night Club and was on his way to a nearby fast food kebab shop, the Turkish Delight in Rooke Street.
Benjamin Luke Coppleman was walking on King Street with his partner. He and the complainant exchanged words; it was a heated exchange on both sides. The complainant made a reference to the fact that he was going to be a bouncer soon and that Mr Coppleman should watch what he was saying to him. This was perceived as a threat by Mr Coppleman. Thinking the situation had calmed, the complainant went on to the kebab shop.
Mr Coppleman’s friend, Andrew Stubbs was walking nearby on King Street and heard the exchange. He also thought that the complainant had conveyed a threat to Mr Coppleman. He caught up with Mr Coppleman and they continued on their way together.
The complainant was at the front counter waiting for his food, when the defendant Mr Coppleman entered the shop and approached him. He was gesturing and asked the complainant to come outside. The complainant began to follow him outside for the purpose of talking to him. Mr Coppleman was intending to go outside and fight the complainant on his own. The shop was busy with members of the public.
The complainant began to walk outside with Mr Coppleman when Mr Stubbs followed Mr Coppleman inside the premises, perceived the beginnings of a fight, approached the complainant and took hold of his shirt and punched him to the face. It seems that Mr Stubbs reacted to the situation based on a combination of ill-informed assumptions and a little bit of information fuelled by alcohol. He had in mind the earlier threat, made false assumptions that it was a threat of some magnitude, and that the complainant was the aggressor, and with an expectation that the situation was going to result in a physical exchange with his friend, and concerned for his friend, he reacted. Once Mr Stubbs punched the complainant, the defendants proceeded together to attack the complainant.
At the same time as Mr Stubbs punched the complainant, Mr Coppleman grabbed the complainant around the neck and pulled him backwards and threw him down onto the floor. Both defendants began punching him to the head and upper body.
The complainant tried to move away from them, but the defendants continued to assault him, punching him and pushing him around. At one point, bystanders were able to grab hold of Mr Coppleman and hold him back for a moment before he broke away, returned to the complainant and punched him to the head a number of times.
The defendant Mr Coppleman stepped backwards while the defendant Mr Stubbs continued to wrestle the complainant and punch him. Mr Stubbs used a sweep kick to take the complainant to the ground, and then tried to place him in a chokehold. The complainant managed to get to his feet. Mr Coppleman moved forward and punched him in the face. Mr Stubbs punched him to the face while the complainant tried to hold him off. Mr Coppleman pushed the complainant. Both defendants stood facing the complainant while the complainant stood his ground, before members of the public ushered the defendants away.
The incident was captured on CCTV cameras inside the shop.
This was a sustained assault that lasted for an intense one minute and 30 seconds, during which the complainant was hit to the head repeatedly. As an attack by two men onto one, it was a cowardly act of thuggery. The complainant did not retaliate in self defence, and rather, showed significant restraint. He simply tried to avoid his attackers. During the assault, furniture was knocked over and members of the public had to move to get out of the way. It was shameful behaviour.
After the assault, the defendants left but remained outside on the street for a period of time and I note it is not a case where they absconded immediately. The complainant stayed inside and then left and attended the Mersey Community Hospital.
The complainant sustained bruises on both sides of his forehead, two black eyes, swollen eyelids, two lacerations to the upper lip and two lacerations to his right elbow. Two of the lacerations required stitches. He suffered from blurred vision and a black spot in his sight for around a week after being assaulted. He was anxious for a few months and had to take some time off work as a truck driver. He has continued to feel a wariness about his safety since the assault. He had additional work arranged as a crowd controller which he chose not to take up after the assault, due to a concern about the risks of that kind of work brought home to him as a result of the assault. He also now avoids going to hotels.
It is very fortunate that the victim did not sustain more serious injury. It is precisely the sort of attack that could easily have resulted in permanent serious injury to the victim. It is also fortunate for the defendants today that the victim did not suffer permanent serious injury.
The defendants were arrested on 9 June and were interviewed. Mr Coppleman chose to make no comment. Mr Stubbs made some limited admissions, he described a fight and blamed the complainant saying that the complainant had been threatening and intimidating towards him. He told police that he had trained in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and boxing and admitted that he had used those skills against the complainant.
The defendants are criminally responsible for their own acts of violence and also the violence of the other. They were acting in concert as principal offenders jointly attacking the complainant.
I take into account that both defendants were heavily intoxicated. However, this is no excuse at all and does not reduce the seriousness of their behaviour in any way. I do accept that this was not a planned attack.
I take into account that both defendants pleaded guilty at an early stage. I turn to the circumstances of each defendant.
Mr Coppleman is 25 years of age. He has no prior convictions at all. He lives with his mother and makes a substantial contribution to the household expenses. She suffers from mental health issues and he has assumed a role as her carer. He has an excellent employment history in Tasmania, his home State, and also in Melbourne. He is currently employed in logistics in a full-time role with significant responsibility.
He has a great deal to lose by this kind of offending. He is aware of the seriousness of his offending and the potential for a term of imprisonment. This has been brought home by comments I have made at the sentencing hearing but also by strict bail conditions which have been in place for some time. He understands the implications of his violent offending in terms of his current employment, the potential to affect his future prospects and that his reputation as someone who is responsible and who can be trusted is at stake. An actual gaol sentence would likely have a destructive long-term impact on his career. I accept that he is motivated to not reoffend. He is ashamed and remorseful of his conduct. He has empathy for his victim, understanding the pain and suffering he has experienced.
I have identified factors that suggests he has good prospects. Other positive factors are that he belongs to a close and supportive family and his social influences are hard working, law-abiding young people. A risk factor in terms of reoffending is his pattern of alcohol consumption. He does not drink often but when he does, he drinks to excess. However, he has now ceased consuming alcohol and he plans to remain abstinent. He has problems controlling his anger generally and he can see that alcohol exacerbates that difficulty. He is willing to accept help to regulate his anger.
Mr Coppleman is considered suitable for community service. A short period of supervised probation for the purpose of facilitating referrals to outside agencies is appropriate, such as counselling focussing on alcohol abuse and anger management.
This is a serious example of violence that warrants a term of imprisonment. In fixing the sentence, the seriousness of the crime must be reflected in the sentence but rehabilitation is an important objective in this case. Mr Coppleman is still a young offender and has no history of offending and as I have said, he has sound prospects of reform providing he can address his anger management and alcohol consumption.
I record a conviction. I impose ten months’ imprisonment which is wholly suspended on conditions that you not commit offences punishable by imprisonment for 18 months. I impose the core conditions of a community correction order for a period of 18 months from today. These conditions will be specified in the order that you will be given and will include that you are not to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for the operational period of 18 months, that you report and comply with the directions of a probation officer, that you must not leave Tasmania without permission and that you must notify of any change of address. I impose a special condition that you must, during the operational period of 18 months, submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer. You must attend counselling focussing on alcohol consumption and educational and other programs. You are to perform 98 hours of community service within two years.
Mr Stubbs is currently 24 years of age, 23 at the time of offending. He has relevant convictions. Some of them are prior convictions committed in 2017 and 2018: destroy property, trespass and breach of an interim family violence order and an offence of disorderly conduct in 2019. He committed three breaches of a family violence order in November 2018 which attracted convictions and an undertaking to be of good behaviour. The sentence was imposed after this assault and he has not breached that undertaking. It is relevant to note too that he has not offended at all since committing this assault. And I also note that none of his prior convictions have any component of violence.
He has already had brought home to him serious consequences resulting from the charge he is facing. He was employed as a lab technician with a Geochemistry firm in Burnie. He lost that employment recently after taking days off to attend Court. That was more than a job to him, it was a career path that he valued and enjoyed. He hoped to be engaged by a labour hire firm almost straight away but that has not eventuated, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has a sound industrious record and have qualifications and experience that should place him in a good position but the current climate of employment is a very difficult one.
Mr Stubbs resides with his mother. His father took his own life in 2016 and that has taken a significant emotional toll on the defendant. He developed depression, requiring medical attention. In the particularly difficult time following the death of his father, his relationship with his mother was difficult and his close friend, Mr Coppleman and Mr Coppleman’s family were very supportive of him. Mr Stubbs regards Mr Coppleman as a brother.
His involvement in this assault, as I have noted, began as a reactive, spur of the moment behaviour, arising from his intoxication. I note that his state of intoxication is not put forward as an excuse. He is aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct and he is genuinely ashamed of it. He was subject to onerous bail conditions and his attitude was that those restrictions were a good thing. He sees his loss of employment as a direct result of his choices, he describes this consequence as a “huge lesson”. In both respects, his attitude to these consequences of his offending shows a measure of maturity and insight.
Mr Stubbs has drastically curtailed his consumption of alcohol, which was a feature not only of this incident, but other offending.
The sentence must reflect the seriousness of this crime of assault and it should also give weight to his rehabilitation which is an important objective. Mr Stubbs is a young offender, with very good prospects of reform. His violence seems to be out of character and unlikely to be repeated particularly if he can be resolute in terms of his alcohol consumption. An actual gaol sentence would have very serious implications for his future career prospects, he is aware of that and has a strong incentive to not reoffend.
I record a conviction and I impose the same sentence as I have imposed on Mr Coppleman. There are some points of difference, in terms of your individual circumstances particularly, but they are not significant. The nature of your offending and Mr Coppleman’s offending and your respective circumstances point to the same sentence.
Mr Stubbs, I record a conviction and impose a sentence of ten months’ imprisonment which is wholly suspended on condition that you not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for 18 months. I impose core community correction conditions in the same terms as Mr Coppleman. Key requirements are supervised probation for 18 months, that you must participate in, and complete the EQUIPS Aggression Program as directed, as well as educational and other programs as directed by your probation officer. You too must perform 98 hours of community service to be completed within two years.