STATE OF TASMANIA v MICHAEL JHON HOPKINSON and GARRY SCOTT SULLIVAN 30 OCTOBER 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE CUTHBERTSON J
Michael Hopkinson and Garry Sullivan, a jury has found each of you guilty of the crime of aggravated armed robbery. At about 43am on 26 August 2023, Jodie Carmichael was violently attacked and robbed in her driveway at Blackmans Bay by two masked men, one of whom was armed with a firearm. It follows from the jury’s verdict that they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were the two men who committed the crime. I am now required to determine the factual basis of sentence consistent with the jury’s verdict.
Ms Carmichael had previously been in a relationship with Mr Sullivan. Mr Sullivan had spent time with Ms Carmichael at her home on 25 August 2023, together with Hayley Wells. Mr Sullivan and Ms Wells went back to Mr Sullivan’s house at Howrah sometime later that day. Later that evening, Ms Carmichael arranged for Ms Wells, who had a car and a licence, to return to her house to pick her up and drive her around while she went to buy drugs. Mr Sullivan was subject to bail conditions which included a curfew at the time and he remained at home. Mr Sullivan knew that Ms Carmichael was collecting drugs, namely methylamphetamine. Ms Carmichael had originally arranged to go back to Mr Sullivan’s house to shout him some of those drugs. Those plans changed during the course of the evening. Messages exchanged between Ms Carmichael and Mr Sullivan evidence that issues had arisen between them, culminating in Ms Carmichael telling him she was not going to provide drugs to him.
There were security cameras in operation at Mr Sullivan’s residence. Evidence from those cameras were tendered during the course of the trial. The footage depicts a car turning up to Mr Sullivan’s house at 1.00am. Mr Hopkinson, Mr Sullivan and Aimee Williams are all captured on the footage in the vicinity of the car and then enter Mr Sullivan’s house. Between 14 and 20 minutes later, the three of them are captured leaving the house in Mr Hopkinson’s car. Mr Hopkinson and Mr Sullivan had changed their clothes. Mr Hopkinson was wearing a patterned jumper and bum bag. Mr Sullivan appeared to be carrying items consistent with the face coverings used by the men who attacked Ms Carmichael during the course of the robbery. Mr Hopkinson was driving the car. Mr Sullivan sat in the front passenger seat and Ms Williams in the rear of the car.
Ms Carmichael also had security cameras at her house. Footage from those cameras was tendered during the trial. Part of that footage depicted a male wearing a patterned jumper resembling that worn by Mr Hopkinson when he left Mr Sullivan’s home, walking up the driveway about 45 minutes after the two males had left the address at Howrah and prior to Ms Carmichael’s return to her house.
Ms Carmichael and Ms Wells returned to Ms Carmichael’s house shortly after 3.00am. They drove up the driveway and parked. Very shortly after, another car entered the driveway, stopping behind Ms Wells’ car. What followed was captured on the security camera.
The first male, who I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt was Mr Hopkinson, got out from the drivers’ side of the second car holding and pointing what appears to be a gun in both of his hands. The second male, who I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt was Mr Sullivan, got out of the front passenger seat of the car. Mr Hopkinson opened the driver’s side door of Ms Wells’ car and pointed the gun at the occupants inside it. Mr Sullivan also approached the car but stood at the boot. Mr Hopkinson leant over Ms Wells towards Ms Carmichael. Mr Sullivan gestured to Mr Hopkinson, indicating he should go to the other side of the vehicle. Mr Hopkinson did so, opened the front passenger door and struck Ms Carmichael to the face twice with the hand holding the gun. Ms Carmichael gave evidence during the trial that she was hit in the face a number of times with a firearm. Mr Hopkinson continued to assault Ms Carmichael while trying to grab her handbag. At this stage, Ms Wells briefly got out the car but was directed to get back in by Mr Sullivan. Mr Sullivan then grabbed the handbag from Ms Carmichael’s hands and placed it into the second vehicle. At the same time, Ms Carmichael was dragged from the car. Mr Hopkinson continued to assault her as she got back into the passenger seat of the car. Both offenders then appeared to briefly speak to each other at the rear of the vehicle. Mr Hopkinson again went to the passenger side of the vehicle and continued to assault Ms Carmichael, trying to reach into the front pocket of the jumper she is wearing. This occurred multiple times.
Mr Sullivan then removed Ms Wells from the driver’s seat and held her on the bonnet of the second car. Mr Hopkinson shut the passenger door of Ms Wells’ car and returned to the driver’s side of the car they arrived in. Mr Sullivan let Ms Wells go. She returned to the driver’s seat of her car. There is evidence that Ms Wells recognised Mr Sullivan at that point. Mr Sullivan got in the front passenger seat of the second car which then reversed down the driveway.
Ms Carmichael received facial injuries from the assaults inflicted on her by Mr Hopkinson. She was bleeding from her nose and lip and had a blood shot eye. Her handbag that was stolen contained her keys to the house. Ms Wells had to climb into the house via a window to let Ms Carmichael in.
A short time later, Ms Carmichael rang Mr Sullivan and told him she had been robbed. She did not realise he was involved at the time. Mr Sullivan’s mobile phone was connected to a mobile phone tower at Kingston when that call took place. Mr Hopkinson, Mr Sullivan and Ms Williams travelled up the Southern Outlet and arrived in the city. They stopped at a service station on Davey Street where an Uber ordered by Ms Williams picked up Mr Sullivan. He travelled back to Ms Carmichael’s home. He arrived approximately 47 minutes after the robbery, at 3.53am. The security footage shows him walking up a driveway and, by that time, wearing a t-shirt.
Mr Sullivan remained at Ms Carmichael’s house for some time, ostensibly to comfort her. Police became aware of the incident after Mr Sullivan contacted them to explain why he would be absent from his home in breach of his curfew. He, of course, made no mention to police of being absent from his curfew address for a number of hours earlier in the night. He was at Ms Carmichael’s house when police first attended.
Ms Carmichael posted the security camera footage of the robbery on Facebook. Later in the morning, she received a message from a person who suggested that one of the males looked like Mr Sullivan. She looked at the footage again and recognised one of the masked men was Mr Sullivan by reference to his clothing, mannerisms and way of holding his arm which had previously been broken. She informed police. Police executed a search warrant at Mr Sullivan’s home. He was arrested and the security camera footage from that address was seized, along with his mobile phone. Mr Hopkinson was arrested in the following days.
Identification was the key issue in this trial. The evidence supporting that the two of you were the males involved was, in my view, overwhelming. First, the clothing worn by the offenders was consistent with that worn by you both when you left Mr Sullivan’s address. Second, there was expert evidence tendered on the trial that showed that mobile phones used by Mr Sullivan and Ms Williams were connecting to mobile phone towers in the vicinity of Ms Carmichael’s home at relevant times. The evidence also supported that Ms Williams and Mr Hopkinson had been in each other’s company at all relevant times. Third, clothing worn by Ms Carmichael was seized. DNA samples taken from a number of different sites of the jumper she was wearing at the time of the attack were analysed and returned results consistent with Mr Hopkinson being a contributor to that biological material. Ms Carmichael gave evidence that she had only ever met Mr Hopkinson once, a number of months prior to the attack and before she had purchased the jumper she was wearing when the attack occurred. In addition, Mr Sullivan sent a text message to Ms Wells before the robbery. In that message, he stated: “don’t spin out when you pull up back at Jody’s no one is going to do anything to you we are only going to take her shit don’t you say a word play the victim”. It is hard to imagine more compelling evidence of his involvement.
This was a serious offence. It must have been a terrifying experience for Ms Carmichael. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both of you were hoping to obtain some of the drugs Ms Carmichael had purchased that night and which you knew she had in her possession. It is not possible for me to conclude who came up with the plan or why Mr Hopkinson became involved at all. I am satisfied that Mr Sullivan was motivated to commit the offence because he was then upset with Ms Carmichael and she was not following through with an earlier arrangement to shout him some drugs. The use of a firearm in this offence is particularly aggravating. The firearm was not recovered. It is not known whether it was a weapon capable of being fired or whether it was loaded. Ms Carmichael, however, believed that the gun was real.
Both of you have very significant records of relevant prior convictions and long histories of substance abuse.
Mr Sullivan, you are now 49 years old. You were 46 years old when you committed this offence. You have appeared in court on a regular basis since you were a youth. Your record includes prior convictions for dishonest offending, offences of violence, drink driving, motor vehicle stealing, drug offences, serious driving offences and Bail Act offences. You were first sentenced to imprisonment by this Court on a charge of assault in 1994. You were sentenced to a partially suspended sentence on a charge of aggravated robbery in 1996. In 2002, you were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for charges of stealing and aggravated assault. In 2014, you were sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment on a charge of aggravated armed robbery. In 2019, you were sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment on charges of aggravated carjacking, stealing, aggravated assault, dangerous driving and three charges of unlawfully injuring or damaging property. You were also sentenced in 2008 to a period of five years imprisonment in New South Wales on a charge of robbery armed with an offensive weapon. You have, as a consequence of this offending, spent most of your adult life in gaol. Your record also evidences a failure to comply with conditions of community based orders, including suspended sentences and parole. Your periods in custody have not deterred you from offending or from substance use. You are at risk of institutionalisation. There may be some prospect that with age and some physical issues resulting from a recent motorcycle crash that you may slow down. You are on opiate replacement therapy and have been for some time.
You have an adult daughter and grandchildren. You have been in a relationship with your current partner for two and a half years. She is prosocial and works full time. Your offending since committing this crime has been confined to breaches of bail and minor drug offences. You have spent time in custody since committing this offence and I will backdate any sentence of imprisonment accordingly.
Mr Hopkinson, you are 38 years old. You were 34 years old when you committed this offence. You have also appeared in court on a regular basis since you were a youth. Your record of prior matters includes convictions for dishonest offending, offences of violence, escape, firearms offences, motor vehicle stealing, drink driving, other serious driving offences, drug offences, family violence offences and Bail Act offences. You were first sentenced to imprisonment by this Court in 2007 on charges of burglary, stealing, drive whilst disqualified, motor vehicle stealing, aggravated assault and escape. In 2010, you were sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment on eight charges of stealing, an attempted stealing, nine counts of injuring property, three counts of aggravated burglary, attempted burglary, attempted aggravated burglary, five counts of motor vehicle stealing and an attempted motor vehicle stealing. In 2018, you were sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment on a charge of accessory after the fact to armed robbery. You have also spent the vast majority of your adult life in custody. Since committing this offence, you have received periods of imprisonment for family violence offences, other offences of violence, drug driving, dishonesty and breach of bail matters. You too have a history of breaching community based orders, including parole.
Your offending has occurred against a background of significant family dysfunction and substance use. You spent time in the care of the state. Your father died when you were young. Your mother has recently suffered a significant stroke. You have a 10 year old child to a former relationship.
There is little to mitigate the seriousness of this offending. I also do not consider that there is any reason to distinguish between the two of you for sentencing purposes. While Mr Hopkinson was the one who delivered the bulk of the physical violence, there is no suggestion that Mr Sullivan did anything to stop him from doing so. It is clear to me that both men were fully aware that one of them was armed and that physical violence was being used to facilitate stealing from Ms Carmichael. Mr Sullivan showed no concern for Ms Carmichael, a person with whom he had been in a relationship with for a number of years. His concern for Ms Carmichael after the event was, in my view, entirely feigned and likely motivated by a desire to deflect attention from his own involvement in this crime. Mr Sullivan was on bail for serious offences at the time he committed this crime. He had only been released from custody less than two months earlier. Mr Hopkinson had also only been released from custody less than three months prior.
General and specific deterrence and protection of the community are important sentencing considerations in this case. That the target of your offence was a person engaging in unlawful activity is, in my view, irrelevant. Ms Carmichael has as much right as any other person in the community to not be subjected to such terrifying conduct. You were armed and disguised your appearance. This was a planned and brutal attack. A significant sentence of imprisonment will be imposed. I will make orders for parole in each case, but in each case it will exceed the minimum. In my view, both of your prospects of rehabilitation can only be said to be guarded. Given your histories of breaching parole, a period longer than the minimum is necessary in the interests of justice. It will be for the Parole Board to determine, in time, if any of the sentence I impose can appropriately be served in the community.
Michael Jhon Hopkinson and Garry Scott Sullivan, I record convictions on the indictment. I impose the same sentence in respect of you both. You are both sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. You will be eligible for parole after serving three years and three months of that sentence. In your case, Mr Hopkinson, your sentence is backdated to 25 June 2025. In your case, Mr Sullivan, the sentence is backdated to commence on 28 August 2025.