THE STATE OF TASMANIA v RIKKI JAMES WILLIAMS 8 MAY 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
The defendant is Rikki James Williams who was born on 1 May 1990, and was aged 33 years of age on or about the 22 March 2024, when, at Rocherlea, he resisted Senior Constable Bauld, Detective Senior Constable Ashley Reinkowsky and Constable Ella Robson whilst acting in the due execution of their duties by hiding in a roof cavity and refusing to come out.
Mr Williams is currently aged 35 years and is charged on indictment 179/2025 with a single count of resisting an officer contrary to s 114(1) of the Criminal Code.
However, there are also a considerable number of counts on complaint 31470/2024 that I am to take into account under s 385A of the Criminal Code. Ms McCracken submitted that these additional matters were “part of the same course of conduct and they relate to the same offending that … [are to be dealt] … with on the indictment”. That complaint has 10 counts. It is count 10 on that complaint upon which Mr Williams has been indicted.
The complainant in the related summary matters is Kristy Ellen Beard, and she was Mr Williams’ partner of the time of the offending. There was a family violence order protecting her from the accused, with conditions including that the accused not be within 10 metres of her; that he not enter any premises where she may be living or staying from time to time; and that he not possess any firearm parts or ammunition.
On 2 May 2025, on the uncontested application by the accused’s counsel in the course of taking Mr Williams plea and hearing sentencing submissions, I discharged Mr Williams on count 3 on complaint 31470/2024. That left counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to be dealt with under s 385A.
Whilst the number of those counts suggests substantial additional criminality, I accept in part Ms McCracken’s submissions that they fall to be dealt with as part of Mr William’s course of conduct on the day. However, whilst I accept that the additional counts reflect related and linked offending, they do not engage the same offending as the charge on indictment of resisting police. That is because had the initial breaches of the family violence order made to protect Ms Beard not occurred there would have been no need for any police response, and in this case because of the nature of those breaches the police response was substantial and sophisticated. It included uniformed police and CIB, the Tasmania Police Special Operations Group, and Ambulance Tasmania was put on standby to attend if necessary.
Further. the initial breaches do not directly relate to Mr Williams’ engagement with the police response. The breaches impacted on Ms Beard not the police. Those charges involved Mr Williams approaching within 10 metres of Ms Beard, entering the place she lived, assaulting, and abusing her. The charges of being in possession of a firearm and ammunition without an appropriate licence also clearly identify the risks associated with Mr Williams’ offending both in relation to Ms Beard and the public, and that raises issues of general and specific deterrence to which I will return.
To be clear, the additional matters to be considered under s 385A include:
1 Four counts of breach of a family violence order contrary to s 35(1) of the Family Violence Act 2004, (being counts 1, 2, 6 and 9 on complaint 31470/2024), being an order made on 12 December 2023 in the Magistrates Court at Launceston relating to his partner and the mother of his children, Kristy Ellen Beard. Of those counts, count 1 relates to going within 10 metres of Ms Beard, count 2 entered the place where Ms Beard’s was living, count 6 verbally abusing Ms Beard and count 9 having possession of a firearm and ammunition;
2 One count of possessing a firearm when not the holder of a firearm licence of the appropriate category in breach of s 9(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (count 7 on complaint 31470/2024), and
3 One count of possessing ammunition when not the holder of an appropriate firearm licence in breach of s 105(3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 (count 8 on complaint 31470/2024).
Turning to the events of Friday, 22 March 2024. Ms Beard was at her home address in Rocherlea. She was asleep in her bedroom. At approximately 1.30pm when she was woken by the accused stomping around the house. This relates to charges 1 and 2 on complaint 31470/2024. Ms Beard asked him what he was doing, and he replied that he was just sorting some stuff out. She went back to bed.
At approximately 2.40pm, Tasmania Police were investigating reports of a stolen motor vehicle. Police drove past the complainant’s address and sighted the motor vehicle in the driveway. Police obtained a telephone search warrant to the address. Around the same time, the accused went into Ms Beard’s bedroom and told her that police were outside and said, “Quick, get something to get me up on the roof.” She went and got him a chair and brought it into the hall.
The accused told her to go and get a gun – get the gun from beside the dryer in the bedroom. She retrieved the gun which was a .22 calibre bolt action single shot rifle. As she was picking it up, she hit it against the dryer which made a noise. She went back down the hall and handed it to the accused who was already in the roof with his legs dangling out. He said, “You’re a fucking dickhead, they would’ve heard.” This is count 6 on complaint 31470/2024. She handed the gun to him, barrel first, he said, “If you fucking tell them, I will shoot ya.”
Pausing there, it was put in mitigation for Mr Williams that his purpose in getting Ms Beard to retrieve the weapon was so that it was not found on the premises where he intended it should remain until collected by an associate, and that the purpose of going into the roof space was simply to conceal himself and the weapon from police. I find it very hard to accept that explanation and note that whatever Mr Williams’ intention was with regard to the firearm his possession of the firearm informed the risks that the police response was designed to mitigate, and highlights how such incidents can escalate, and the significant risks involved.
Police attended the address and could hear movement inside. Police knocked on the door but had no response.
Constable Stuart Bauld kicked the back door but was unable to gain entry. After a short time, Ms Beard came to the door and opened it. She whispered, “He is here.” They walked into the rear yard and she told Constable Bauld that she had helped the accused into the roof and that he had a gun.
Ms Beard appeared frightened. She was shaking and was worried that the accused would overhear the conversation. It is here that the impact of Mr Williams’ offending as it relates to Ms Beard has clear expression.
Police established a cordon around the address and requested further police assistance. There was a large police presence as I have already described.
Police, including Senior Constable Stuart Bauld and Detective Senior Constable Ashley Reinkowsky entered the house and attempted to negotiate with the accused through the roof space.
The accused was unresponsive to police attempts to communicate with him. That prolonged the siege like nature of the incident, and as a result, police negotiators were sent to the address, including Constable Ella Robson. She attempted to communicate with the accused, who remained unresponsive, for approximately four hours. During this time, police deployed OC spray twice, into the roof cavity.
During the attempted negotiations, police used a drone to enter the roof space through the open internal manhole. The drone captured three areas within the roof space where insulation had been moved and piled in a size appropriate to hide a person. The drone operator attempted to fly the drone into the roof space a second time but the drone was blocked entry by insulation that had been placed over the manhole by the accused.
At approximately 7.09 pm, the accused engaged with Constable Ella Robson and eventually agreed to exit the roof space in exchange for a cigarette and a can of Red Bull. At approximately 7.15 pm, the accused lowered himself through the manhole and was arrested. Police searched the roof cavity and located a loaded .22 firearm near the skylight, and this gave rise to the charges at counts 7, 8 and 9 on the complaint.
The duration of the police response was over four hours. At all times, the police officers were acting in the due execution of their duties. The accused was transported to the Launceston Police Station where he participated in a record of interview.
Under caution, he said, in summary, that he was aware of the family violence order in place, protecting the complainant. He attended the complainant’s address to drop money off because she’s behind in rent. He went straight up into the roof when police arrived, he did not know anything about that firearm. This is not accepted by the State. He fell asleep, when he woke up, he jumped up, walked over, and asked for a drink, and then came down. He was under the insulation so he would not be seen. He blocked the manhole up when the drone attempted to enter. He blocked it so they knew he was there.
It is unclear why Mr Williams had to breach the family violence order in order to give the complainant money for rent.
Ms Flint noted that the breaches of the family violence order, charged in the complaint, are “family violence offences” for the purposes of the Family Violence Act 2004, and drew my attention to s 13A(3) of that Act, which provides that when determining the sentence for a family violence offence, a court or a judge is to consider the fact that the offender is a serial family violence perpetrator as an aggravating factor. That provision applies here, and I direct that those offences be recorded as family violence offences. For clarity that includes counts 1, 2, 6 and 9 on the complaint.
Ms McCracken helpfully clarified the time in custody available to be allocated in this matter and it is not in dispute that any sentence of imprisonment is to be backdated to 21 January 2025.
The accused has been in a long term de facto relationship with Ms Kristy Ellen Beard and they have five children together, the youngest child has just turned nine years of age, so they have been together for well over a decade.
In mitigation Ms McCracken acknowledged that Mr Williams has a very significant criminal history, which includes family violence offending, issues with authority and firearms offences. I was encouraged to drill down into that record as it relates to this offending, Mr Williams prior convictions are listed between pages 11 and 103 of the Crown papers. No pre-sentence report was sought.
Ms Flint described Mr Williams’ record of convictions in the following terms:
The accused has significant priors. On 14 February last year, the accused was convicted of 36 breaches of a family violence order against Ms Beard, two breaches of an interim family order also against Ms Beard, an aggravated common assault against Ms Beard, five firearms related offences, one assault police, and one resist police.
On 9 January this year, the accused was convicted in the Launceston Magistrates Court of 47 breaches of a family violence order against Ms Beard, at which time he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, backdated to 21 September 2024, and at that time a serial family violence offender declaration was made, pursuant to s 29A of the Family Violence Act.
More generally, a substantial proportion of the priors are breaches of family violence orders and interim family violence orders. I have counted in excess of 100 convictions. Additionally to the aggravated common assault that I previously mentioned, there are nine priors for common assault, and these are all against the same complainant as well.
The accused has, generally, a poor history towards police, with three priors for resisting police officers, the most recent being 14 February 2024; two assault police officers, the most recent being on that same date; three evade police, most recently 30 January 2019; and one threaten police. The accused also has a poor history with firearms, with 11 priors in total for various firearms offences, the most recent being 14 February 2024.
Ms McCracken offered the following submissions on Mr Williams record:
“… looking at the prior convictions, it may well be that it gives the picture that Ms Beard is purely a victim of Mr Williams’s repeated behaviour. Her behaviour in the course of their relationship has shown that’s not the case and more recently, including in the weeks around this offence, both parties were charged with ill-treatment of their children, three of their children. The basis of Mr Williams being charged was that Ms Beard did a long, lengthy record of interview with Tasmania Police indicating that Mr Williams was the reason for each of the injuries to the children. Ultimately, the DPP discharged him because all of the children discounted that and declared that to be entirely dishonest by Ms Beard. She has pleaded guilty to ill-treatment of the three children and in my submission, behaviour like that indicates that Ms Beard is not somebody who is entirely a victim in the circumstances and it plays a part also in relation to the most recent sentence, which was in – the 9th of January of this year. That sentence includes a significant number of contact breaches between the parties.
They were allowed to contact one another at that stage for the purpose of discussing their children, which was allowed by the family violence order. Mr Williams was charged with a number of contact breaches because the two of them had communications that varied into other areas but also that there was abusive language that was used by Mr Williams in calling her names. The police facts for those matters indicated that Ms Beard would use the same language back to him, that both of them were the instigators on occasions of the arguments that they had but he was the only one who was bound to abide by a family violence order at the time. So, the behaviour that is criminal is the breaching the order but they were both behaving in the same way.”
Ms McCracken also submitted that:
“The Crown statement of facts tends to indicate that Ms Beard, at least in this occasion, was scared and worried and … undoubtedly that is the case. However, Mr Williams’s record of prior convictions, while extensive in relation to her, need to be tempered with the fact that she also has convictions in relation to him, specifically she has a conviction in relation to making a false statutory declaration in relation to charges of common assault against him.”
There was however no suggestion that Ms Beard was lying about what occurred on 22 March 2024, and no contest as to the State’s account of the facts in this matter.
The indictable offence for which I am to sentence Mr Williams certainly involved a large police presence over the course of many hours, at least four hours. Specialist services were on standby during that time, negotiators and a drone operator were called in. There is a public interest factor to be taken into account in sentencing, in the context of general deterrence, due to this substantial strain on the public resources. It appears clear that the involvement of the loaded firearm increased the perceived risk and therefore, the scale of the response. The accused’s prior convictions certainly suggest the need for specific deterrence.
The relationship between Mr Williams and Ms Beard was turbulent and troubled and no doubt they both contributed to that. I am still left with the task of sentencing Mr Williams for his conduct in respect of both the indictable and summary offences. In relation to the indictable offence, I am concerned with what occurred on the day and the risks that Mr Williams conduct gave rise to. It is easy to envisage how that conduct could have led to tragedy.
Ms McCracken explained that the firearm belonged to an un-named associate. Mr Williams became aware that the police were outside. He goes into the roof cavity because he wants to hide from the police and hides himself under the insulation. He has Ms Beard bring the firearm up to him because he does not want either of them caught with it, him or her. Ms McCracken submitted that Mr Williams did not know if the firearm was loaded or not. He did not play around with it to check. He knew, however, he would be in a great deal of trouble if he was found in possession of a firearm, whether it would be loaded or not.
Mr Williams acted in a manner that was, at least, reckless as to whether the weapon was loaded or not in circumstances where it was clear that matters may escalate. I struggle to accept that Mr Williams was seeking to remove the firearm from the house because he may have been presumed to be in possession of it because it was in the house. As Ms McCracken confirmed he was homeless at the time and there was a family violence order that precluded him living with Ms Beard in the house. However, Ms McCracken explained that there had been a prior occasion at an address at Boobialla Crescent where some firearms had been found under Ms Beard’s house. Mr Williams had been charged with breaching the order by going there and then was charged with possession of the firearms and she was not. It was that experience that Ms McCracken submits led Mr Williams to his mindset at the material time.
Mr Williams has had issues with the use of methylamphetamine throughout his adulthood. I was told that his thinking and mindset have been affected by that, including on the relevant occasion here, and so his thinking is not always linear or logical as a result of that, and that was a factor in relation to his decision-making on this occasion. He has undertaken the EQUIPS Foundations program while in prison. The Foundations program is twice a week over a 12 week course, and it is geared towards people who are in prison so it deals with a number of different factors, but primarily in Mr Williams’s case, it was in relation to his drug addiction. I was handed a letter speaking well of his participation in that program.
In general terms, because of his offending Mr Williams’s time in the community has been relatively brief as an adult. His first sentence of imprisonment occurred at age 20 in 2011 and since that time, he has received sentences of immediate imprisonment almost every year until today’s date. He has not had any long-term drug rehabilitation as a result, because the majority of his adulthood has been spent incarcerated.
Ms McCracken observed that
“… it has to be said that Mr Williams has a very poor history, not only of family violence matters but in general. The vast majority of his breaches of family violence have been with Ms Beard being complicit. That is perhaps simply that it’s slightly less aggravating than it would be if she was not, but many of the breaches have been with her agreement, if not instigation. This is the second occasion he’s been in this jurisdiction.”
It is important for Mr Williams to recognise that he is the one that is bound by family violence orders and he is the one that must address his behaviour to take that into account.
Ms McCracken observed that this is the second time that Mr Williams is in this jurisdiction being sentenced, and that he was sentenced for stealing in 2020. On that occasion he received a wholly suspended sentence and the stealing was not one where it would ordinarily be dealt with in this jurisdiction. It was essentially a shoplifting matter.
Mr Williams has recently turned 35. The only children that Mr Williams has are those that he has with Ms Beard. None of those children are currently in Ms Beard care, they are all in the custody of the State, and Mr Williams is not currently having in personal contact with them but intends to work with Child Protection upon his release.
I will take the time he has spent in custody into account.
I will approach the matter on the basis that Mr Williams has made a relatively early plea following the discharge of count 3 on the complaint.
Ms McCracken conceded that with Mr Williams’s prior convictions however, and the serious nature of the charge in general, a sentence of imprisonment will need to be imposed and it will need to be one that has immediate effect. I was also told that Mr Williams does not have a stable place of residence in the community, he is not someone who is likely to be eligible for parole. It was submitted that is a matter that I can take into account and give as much weight as I consider necessary. Ms McCracken made it clear that Mr Williams was not asking for a sentence that would include a parole order.
Further, Ms McCracken observed that Mr Williams:
“… would not be eligible, in my experience, for community service hours, considering his long-term illicit drug use, but his progress in prison with the EQUIPS Foundation program might put him in good stead to continue that kind of – that program in the – in the community. But that should only require a screening assessment rather than a full pre‑sentence report.”
Ms McCracken submitted that this matter can be distinguished from cases where there have been actual threats to police and constant engagement, as there often is, in cases of resist police in this jurisdiction. It is on that basis that it was put that this case is, despite the possession of a firearm, on the lower end of the scale. I do not accept that the undisputed facts in this matter put it at the lower end of the scale. As I have observed there was a considerable police response because of the loaded firearm and whatever the reason for Mr Williams failure to engage with police the situation had the potential to escalate because of his conduct. I also note the circumstances of aggravation in respect of the family violence offences.
Rikki James Williams you are convicted on indictment 179/2025 and on counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of complaint 31470/2024 and I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 9 months to be served immediately, it will be backdated to 21 January 2025 and you will not be eligible for parole.