STATE OF TASMANIA v CLINTON CHARLES WILSON 7 JULY 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Clinton Wilson, as I announced two days ago I find that you committed a contempt of court. You were charged with contempt and did not seek to show cause as to why you should not be found guilty. You were called to give evidence at the trial of Corey Gesler but on 21 June 2022 you refused to enter the court, go into the witness box and give evidence. Mr Gesler was on trial for aggravated armed robbery and committing an unlawful act intended to do bodily harm. Overnight between 9 and 10 January 2018 Alexander Friend was subjected to a prolonged and brutal beating at the hands of four men. He had been lured to the home of Sammual Wilmot so he could be robbed of drugs and money. He was punched, kicked and struck with a wooden chair leg. His injuries were so severe that he very nearly died. The physical and psychological impact will likely be lifelong. It was the State’s case that Mr Gesler was one of the men responsible along with you, Mr Wilmot and Jake Herlihy. You were a compellable witness at his trial having earlier pleaded guilty to the same crimes. You were sentenced on 5 December 2019 to imprisonment for five years and six months from 14 January 2018, with eligibility for parole after having served two years and nine months of that sentence. An eight month suspended term was also activated. Your sentence was discounted because you indicated a willingness to give evidence in each of the trials of the other assailants. By the time of Mr Gesler’s trial Mr Wilmot and Mr Herlihy had pleaded guilty. Their sentences were also reduced because of an indication of willingness to give truthful evidence. However neither did so. Mr Herlihy came into court but refused to enter the witness box and, like you, will be punished for contempt. Mr Wilmot gave evidence. However his evidence was unfavourable to the prosecution and it strongly appeared to me that he did not make a genuine attempt to give a truthful account.
Your unwillingness to give evidence was ameliorated to some extent because evidence of statements you made to the police when you were interviewed shortly after the crimes was admitted under the Evidence Act, s 65. A similar course was taken with some of the things Mr Herlihy told the police. Evidence of what Mr Wilmot told the police in his interview was admitted under s 66. It was not necessary to delay or abandon the trial.
The jury found Mr Gesler guilty of both crimes. Nevertheless your contempt should be regarded as a serious one. The evidence you could have given was important. You were present at the time the crime was committed and could have given direct evidence of the role played by Mr Gesler. The refusal to give relevant and admissible evidence, especially for such serious crimes, undermines the rule of law and the administration of justice. Courts decide cases on the basis of the evidence and, with very few exceptions, each member of society owes a duty to every other member of society to attend court, be sworn or affirmed to give evidence, and to give truthful answers to questions properly asked, when called upon to do so. When sentencing a person who refuses to comply with that duty it is necessary to not only punish that person and denounce the contempt, but also to make clear to others the likely result in the hope of reducing the chance that he or she will act in the same way.
Your refusal was a considered one, made after you had obtained legal advice and when you well understood the likely consequences. Another likely consequence is that the discount on your sentence will be reviewed on appeal. It will be for the Court of Criminal Appeal to consider the relevance of the sentence I am about to impose.
Your personal circumstances are described, for the most part, in my original sentencing remarks and there is no need to repeat them. You became eligible for parole on 13 April 2021. You were granted parole on 24 May 2021 but it was revoked on 10 December 2021 not because you re-offended but because of non-compliance with other conditions and use of illicit drugs. You have been in custody since then although you have re-applied for parole. During the period of your release your then partner became pregnant although your relationship is now at an end. The baby is four months old. You also have a 10 year old child with whom you have contact when in the community. You have a new partner who I am told is a good influence, and who recognises signs of improvement. You express a wish to live a law abiding life. You accepted responsibility for your part in this crime at an early stage and you explain your refusal to give evidence as resulting from a wish to have nothing more to do with it. I do not see that as an explanation which carries much weight. Although it was not expressly suggested by your counsel I think that there was also likely a fear of some other recriminations in prison or even following your release were you to have given evidence against another. It is in your favour that you quickly accepted that you had committed a contempt. In light of past parole breaches and to ensure adequate punishment and deterrence I make no parole order.
Clinton Wilson, a conviction is recorded and you are sentenced to imprisonment for six months cumulative to the sentence you are now serving.