STATE OF TASMANIA v SAMUAL CLINTON WILMOT 19 AUGUST 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BLOW CJ
Mr Wilmot has pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, assault, unlawfully injuring property, and threatening a juror.
One afternoon in August 2017, he and some other people went to a house in Kings Meadows to confront a man about an alleged debt of $75. The occupants of the house saw them arrive, went inside, and locked the front door. One of Mr Wilmot’s companions kicked the front door open and entered, with Mr Wilmot and his brother following him to act as back-up. The man who entered first had a knife, but Mr Wilmot did not know that. That man confronted the alleged debtor, who had been asleep, swung the knife at him, and stabbed him in the chest. Mr Wilmot was not criminally responsible for that attack. One of the occupants of the house came out of hiding, and entered the lounge room, but the man with the knife punched him a number of times to the head, causing him to fall to the floor, and then stomped on his knees and ankles and kicked him to the stomach. That assailant then began to damage property at the house. He broke several windows, and smashed a television set.
By pleading guilty, Mr Wilmot has acknowledged that he committed the crime of aggravated burglary by entering the house with others with the intention that the crime of assault was to be committed once they were inside; that he is criminally responsible for the crime of assault in relation to the second man attacked, since that man was attacked in pursuance of a joint criminal enterprise; and that he abetted the principal offender in damaging the door, windows and television set.
The charge of threatening a juror relates to a separate incident. On 11 May 2018 a jury in Launceston found another brother of Mr Wilmot guilty of the crime of aggravated armed robbery. Mr Wilmot was present when the foreman of the jury announced the verdict. The case was adjourned for sentencing submissions at a later date. Mr Wilmot followed the foreman out of the building. Just outside the door, he threatened the foreman by saying, “I remember faces.” He followed the foreman, approached him again, and threatened him further by saying, “I don’t forget faces.” The District Registrar intervened at that point. He told Mr Wilmot not to speak to the foreman again. Mr Wilmot walked away.
Mr Wilmot was 23 years old when each of these incidents occurred. He is now 25. He has been sentenced by magistrates for a great many offences since his early teens. Those offences include five assaults. When he was 17, he was sentenced to 6 months’ detention for the first assault and for receiving stolen property. When he was 19, he was given w wholly suspended sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment and placed on probation in relation to the next two assaults. In 2015 he was convicted and placed on probation again for the fourth assault, and for breaching a police family violence order. I was told that he had been attacked on the occasion in question, and had over-reacted. The fifth assault was committed in October 2017, after the first incident that I am concerned with. Mr Wilmot was on bail on that charge when he threatened the jury foreman. A magistrate subsequently sentenced him to 3 months’ imprisonment for that fifth assault, with 6 weeks of that sentence suspended. That magistrate also made a probation order for 12 months commencing in May 2018.
Mr Wilmot committed some drug offences in January 2018. Last December a magistrate imposed a wholly suspended sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment in respect of those offences, as well as extending Mr Wilmot’s period of probation to November 2019.
Mr Wilmot has not spent any time in custody in relation to the charges I am dealing with, but he spent 28 days in custody as from 13 January 2018 in relation to an unrelated charge that is still pending in this Court. I will take that period into account in sentencing him today.
Mr Wilmot had a significant drug habit when he committed the crimes I am concerned with. That habit began when he was 12 years old. However he has been drug free since he was released from prison in February of last year. He is now in a stable relationship with a partner. They have been together for about 10 months. She is a positive influence on him. They live in her mother’s home. Before going to live with his partner, he lived with his mother for about 7 months, and made successful efforts to get off drugs, stay out of trouble, and look after his health and fitness. He has three children, but has seen little of them because of the life he has been leading. He was educated only to year 7 but, to his credit, has been employed in a number of positions since the age of 17, including a job with a removalist that lasted 2½ years.
His counsel told me that anger management was an issue for him. He attended and completed a course relating to anger management from January to April this year. He is more than half way through a program relating to drug addiction. He now attends a gym every day. He is training as a body builder. He would like to become a fitness instructor. He plays in a basketball team. He socialises with basketball players and people who go to the same gym.
He co-operated with the police in relation to the Kings Meadows incident, took part in an interview, and made significant submissions. Arrangements were made for him to plead guilty to the current charges relating to that incident as soon as it was agreed that he was not criminally responsible for the wounding of the first man attacked. His younger brother pleaded guilty to the same charges in relation to that incident, and was sentenced by another judge to 4 months’ home detention in April.
When he threatened the jury foreman, Mr Wilmot had been surprised by the guilty verdict and was emotionally upset. The foreman made a statement indicating that he did not feel intimidated by Mr Wilmot’s conduct.
Hostility towards jurors should never be tolerated. Jurors are given no choice about the services that they are required to perform. Our system of justice depends on them giving up their time and conscientiously making decisions that can have enormous impacts on the lives of other citizens. Acts of hostility towards jurors must therefore be punished more severely than such acts ordinarily would be when directed at other people.
However, because of the progress that Mr Wilmot has made towards his rehabilitation, I do not think it would be fair to send him back to prison at this stage. When this case came before me in May, I ordered a pre-sentence report as to his suitability for a home detention order and a community service order. He was living in Launceston then, but lost his accommodation in Launceston through no fault of his own, and now lives in Avoca. A probation officer has reported that he is suitable for a community service order, but now unsuitable for a home detention order, solely because there is not adequate signal strength for an electronic monitoring device at his home in Avoca. I have therefore decided to impose a suspended sentence, to require him to perform some community service, and to extend his period of probation. I will backdate his sentence by 28 days to take account of the period that he spent in custody on remand in January and February 2018, and suspend the unserved balance of that sentence so that he will not have to return to prison unless he subsequently re-offends.
Samual Clinton Wilmot, I convict you and sentence you to six months’ imprisonment with effect from 22 July 2019. I suspend the unserved balance of this sentence on conditions that (a) you are not to commit another offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years; and (b) you must within eight months satisfactorily perform 56 hours’ community service as directed by a probation officer or a supervisor.
I also make a community correction order which you must comply with until 21 November 2020 with conditions that:
- During the operational period of this order, you must submit to the supervision of a probation officer as required by the probation officer.
- You must attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer.
- You must undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer.
- You must submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probation officer.
- You must submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.
- You must to report to the office of Community Corrections in Launceston today or tomorrow for the purpose of these orders.
I order you to pay Montanna Crawford the sum of $600 as compensation for damage to the television set. I adjourn sine die the compensation claim relating to Harrison Humphries.