STATE OF TASMANIA v BRODIE WELLS 4 SEPTEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Mr Wells, the indictment in this case charged you with six crimes arising out of events which occurred at the home of your former partner, Courtney Page, in the early hours of 23 December 2022. Five counts relate to Bailey Moss who was present at the premises at the time and one alleged an assault against Ms Page. You pleaded guilty to four of the counts relating to Mr Moss, in particular, unlawfully damaging his motor vehicle, assaulting him on two separate occasions and the burglary of his vehicle, which simply involved perpetrating both assaults through the open driver’s side window of the vehicle. You dispute the factual basis of sentencing of one of the assaults, in particular whether it was perpetrated by the delivery of punches alone, or whether you struck him with a baseball bat. In respect of the other counts, a jury found you guilty of assaulting Mr Moss by deliberately causing your vehicle to collide with his but found you not guilty of the alleged assault on Ms Page. Given that all of the charges arise out of events which were the subject of evidence during the trial, it is a matter for me to determine the factual basis of sentencing in respect of the five crimes to which you have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty. In making that determination, I must of course only find facts adverse to you if I am satisfied of those facts beyond reasonable doubt and they are consistent with the jury’s verdicts.
The background to this unfortunate confrontation is that you and Ms Page had been living together in a significant relationship since around May 2018. For the past 3 years, you lived in Ms Page’s house which was situated on a large rural property at Winkleigh. The house was accessed off a public road by way of a winding driveway variously estimated to be between 300m and 600m in length. You had separated about a month before these events. Ms Page continued to live in her house, and you took up residence in Penguin on the NW Coast. Both of you had only met Mr Moss about a month before these events. That occurred when you arranged for him to perform some slashing work on Ms Page’s property.
Mr Moss did that work over two consecutive days. The second day was the day of this incident. He travelled to the property in his single cab utility motor vehicle, which he parked beside the carport. After the work was finished, he and Ms Page had a drink together on the deck of her house. This social interaction extended through the night to the time of these events which was around 2 am. At the same time, you were travelling back from Hobart during the course of your employment as a truck driver. There was some dispute in the evidence as to how contact between you and Ms Page started, which does not require resolution, but at some point you and she spoke by telephone. After the call, you decided to drive to her house from your work depot in Devonport, a trip of about 45 minutes. You said that you decided to do this because you were concerned about her welfare, notwithstanding that she had assured you during the conversation that she was ok. She had also told you that she was alone. In view of your actions after you arrived there, I am satisfied that your motivation for driving to the property was that you believed that she had not been truthful when she told you that she was alone and you had concluded that somebody else was there with her.
You arrived at her property at around 2:30 am. From outside the property, you could see Mr Moss’s vehicle parked near the carport. You may not have known at that point that it was his but you at least believed that somebody else was present at the house. This caused you to fly into a jealous rage. In this state of mind, you drove directly onto the driveway and proceeded at an excessive speed, somewhere between 60 and 80 km/h, towards the house. When Ms Page heard your vehicle arrive outside the property, she became frightened and demanded that Mr Moss leave. He went to his car, reversed out and commenced to drive down the driveway. This was happening just as you were reaching the top of the driveway. I accept Mr Moss’s evidence about the location and manner in which the collision occurred. In particular, I am satisfied that Mr Moss had pulled over to his right before your vehicles reached each other, in order to avoid your vehicle. Consistently with the jury’s verdict, I am satisfied that you drove directly at his vehicle and collided with the passenger side door. I am satisfied that you rammed his vehicle deliberately. You intention was to stop the vehicle by disabling it. You realised that such a collision could cause physical force to be applied to Mr Moss, but in your jealous rage, you did not care about this. After the collision, Mr Moss tried to drive down the driveway but the damage to his vehicle prevented him from getting very far. You drove after him and after a short distance, blocked his exit with your vehicle. You then got out of your car with a baseball bat and used it to smash the windscreen of Mr Moss’s vehicle. You continued to swing the bat at him through the open driver’s side window. The bat struck the car door and Mr Moss’s arm.
Ms Page then jumped on your back and tried to pull you away from Mr Moss. You shrugged her off and in that process your elbow came into contact with her face. It is not alleged that this contact constituted a crime. Clearly, the jury was not satisfied that you attacked Ms Page after this. However, you did continue to punch Mr Moss in the head through the car window. I accept Mr Moss’s evidence that you punched him three or four times with considerable force.
Fortunately, Mr Moss did not receive any serious physical injuries as a result of the assaults. However, as would be expected he found these events and their aftermath including the much-delayed trial, distressing. He quite rightly considers that he did not deserve what you did to him. Although his car was insured, he makes the point that it was his pride and joy and I infer that its loss has had an emotional impact on him. It is very easy, I think, to overlook the impact that violent crime can have on those attacked, particularly in the absence of tangible physical injury. However, there is absolutely no doubt, that such impact can and usually is real and significant. That is the situation in respect of Mr Moss. It must certainly be taken into account in the formulation of the appropriate sentence.
You are now 31 years of age, and you were 28 when you committed these crimes. You have no prior convictions of significance. You are in a permanent relationship and have a young child. You and your partner have recently commenced a small business and you also operate as a horse trainer. In short, apart from your commission of these crimes, you are a person of good character.
It follows that what you did was out of character. However, your criminal conduct was serious and dangerous. It was particularly dangerous to ram the vehicle while Mr Moss was in it. What you did to him was completely unjustified and outrageous. It is clear to me that you had lost control and in that state of mind you had also lost the capacity to moderate the force you were using with your motor vehicle, the baseball bat and your fists. Your assaults perpetrated with the first two items in fact involved the use of weapons. It is concerning to ponder what you would have done had you managed to get Mr Moss out of the vehicle. Your criminal conduct bears a high degree of objective seriousness.
I accept that you are entitled to the benefit of your early pleas of guilty. As things turned out, you were justified in taking the matter to trial given the not guilty verdict on count 4.
In my view, the objective seriousness of these crimes requires the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. However, given your lack of prior convictions, your pleas of guilty and your otherwise good character, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to wholly suspend the sentence. However, I intend to require you to perform some community service as a condition of suspension so as to ensure the infliction of some actual punishment.
Accordingly the orders I make are as follows:
- You are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty or been found guilty
- You are sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment. The whole of the sentence will be suspended for a period of 24 months on the following conditions:
- that you are not to commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during that period
- that you will perform community service for a period of 182 hours. The court notes that the sections referred to in s 24(5A) of the Sentencing Act apply to this condition. For the purpose of those provisions:
you must report to a probation officer at the office of community corrections in Launceston within 3 clear days of today and;
the operational period of the order is 24 months.
- I make a compensation order in favour of Elders insurance in the sum of $39,253.72