STATE OF TASMANIA v JULIA ADELINE TONKS 14 DECEMBER 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Julia Tonks, you were found guilty by a jury of assault. The offence was committed on 3 October 2020 against Tegan Smith. It is necessary for me to make some findings of fact to determine the basis on which you are to be sentenced. Facts which are adverse to you must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. At the time you lived in a rented house set back from the road in Trevallyn. You were in a relationship with Luke Walker and he was staying overnight. Ms Smith lived in a neighbouring unit, part of a complex of five units. Her friend Sefton Bottomley was visiting her. Commencing in the early hours of the morning, there were three separate occasions of conflict between the occupants of the two properties.
You, Mr Walker, and a young female who lived with you were all charged with wounding and assaulting Mr Bottomley but acquitted of those crimes. You and the female were charged with aggravated robbery of Ms Smith. You were acquitted of that charge but found guilty of the alternative crime of assault. In the course of the evidence at trial wildly differing accounts were given by the protagonists. However in relation to that there is no need for me to go into much detail because, for the most part the facts upon which I am to proceed to sentence are either admitted or follow from the verdicts.
First, around 3.00 am, you and Mr Walker walked from your home to Ms Smith’s unit. I am satisfied that the reason for this is that you were disturbed by the noise of a motor bike hooning in the street. Believing it to be a male who was at that unit you went to complain. Mr Walker pleaded guilty to assaulting Ms Smith in the course of the argument which followed but you are not responsible for that crime and you removed Mr Walker from the scene.
I am also satisfied that following that incident Mr Bottomley continued to cause a disturbance by shouting and loudly and abusively over the fence. This made you angry and you and Mr Walker and the young female went to confront him again. When the door of Ms Smith’s unit was opened to you another angry exchange occurred, but no violence. Ms Smith filmed the incident on her phone.
The events which gave rise to the charges considered during the trial occurred the following morning. As to the differing accounts it is not necessary for me to make findings other than these. At around 9 am, someone drove into the side of the car which belonged to Mr Bottomley and Ms Smith which was parked in the carport of Ms Smith’s unit. Mr Bottomley wrongly concluded that someone from your house was responsible. In purported retaliation he went to the fence line and threw large chunks of concrete at your home. At trial he denied having done so but I am satisfied he did. The kitchen and bathroom windows were broken. Some of the missiles ended up inside the house along with a lot of shattered glass. You, the young female and Mr Walker all then went to Ms Smith’s unit to confront Mr Bottomley. There followed a violent exchange involving Mr Bottomley and you and your companions in which one or more knives were produced. Mr Bottomley suffered a deep wound to his left hand and a wound to his knee. The young female suffered a small wound to her torso and Mr Walker suffered a cut to his little finger. You were acquitted of any crime arising from that exchange. It follows from those verdicts that the jury must have entertained a reasonable doubt about significant parts of Mr Bottomley’s account of the relevant events and, to a lesser extent, the account given by Ms Smith. They are doubts I share.
It was towards the end of that altercation that the assault of which you were found guilty was committed. Ms Smith ran off down her driveway. You and the young female ran after her. There is no dispute that you caught up with her and took her phone. You told the police that you took it from Ms Smith’s hand without any need to apply force to Ms Smith, but the jury must have rejected at least that part of your account. I agree. In all the circumstances I reject that claim as a reasonable possibility. I am satisfied that you acted because you were angry about everything which had happened, culminating in the broken windows. When you caught Ms Smith she was pulled to the ground. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the young female punched her to her face. I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you also punched her, but you are responsible for all of the violence because you and the young female shared a common intention to chase and catch Ms Smith and use force if necessary to take her phone without her consent. That one or other of you would punch her in the course of that exchange was something which was likely to happen. You admitted taking the phone but claimed that you told Ms Smith that she could have it back when the windows were paid for. I am satisfied that the jury acquitted you of robbery because they could not exclude, as a reasonable possibility, that you did not intend to permanently deprive Ms Smith of her phone and thus did not steal it. The phone was taken to your home. It was soon recovered by the police although by then it had been given to another person at your home and its return was not volunteered. Ms Smith suffered some scrapes and bruises but there was no lasting physical injury. It is also possible that some of the bruises were caused earlier by Mr Walker. Nevertheless it must have been very upsetting experience for her. I have a victim impact statement which describes serious ongoing psychological and other effects on her life but it is likely that the impact substantially relates to the matters of which you were acquitted or not responsible for.
You are now 35. Even though resort to violence is never acceptable in the circumstances I have described I accept that it is not unnatural to react angrily to having the windows of your home deliberately broken in such a way. You have no relevant prior convictions. You come from a stable family background. You have four children now aged between 5 and 18. You have a degree in nursing and additional qualifications in mental health nursing. As a result of the charges you lost your registration to work with vulnerable people but are hopeful of having it re-instated in light of the verdicts. You have obtained alternative employment in the meantime which you manage around an auto-immune condition which has recently been diagnosed. I would accept the submission of your counsel that punishment and general and specific deterrence are adequately addressed by imposition of a fine. In light of the possible effect that a conviction for an offence of violence may have on your ability to resume the type of employment for which you are qualified, and taking into account the absence of any prior convictions, I will not record a conviction.
Julia Tonks, without recording a conviction I order that you pay a fine of $1,000. If you require longer than 28 days to pay that sum you may enter into a repayment arrangement.