STATE OF TASMANIA v CLINTON CHARLES WILSON 5 DECEMBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Clinton Wilson, you plead guilty to aggravated armed robbery and committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm. The crimes were committed by you and three other men at a unit in Waverley overnight between 9 and 10 January 2018 against the complainant, a male then aged 47. At the time, you were aged 25. The other men were respectively aged 24, 23 and 18. They were friends and acquaintances of yours and one of them lived in that unit. You went to the unit on that night to socialise. The girlfriend of the youngest man was also present. While you were there you learned of a plan, first thought of by two of the men a couple of days earlier, to lure the complainant to the unit to rob him of money and drugs. Once you learned of the plan it was discussed between the group and you joined in the intention to use force and intimidation against the man to obtain the money and drugs and actively assisted in the planning.
At about 11pm, one of the men sent a text to the complainant inviting him to the unit. He arrived not long afterwards with a large amount of crystalline methylamphetamine and several thousand dollars in cash. He was set upon by you and the others and subjected to a prolonged, vicious and brutal beating. He was punched to the face, head and body. When he fell to the floor he was repeatedly struck with punches, elbows and a wooden chair leg. Electrical tape was wound around his neck and face. As he lay on the ground, severely injured, one of the others kicked his face with such force as to render him unconscious. As a result of the beating much blood was spread around the unit, including on the floor and walls of the lounge room and kitchen. Blood spatter was later found on the chair leg which had been used as a weapon.
After the violence stopped, and the complainant lay unconscious and bleeding on the floor, you took his car keys and walked to the utility he had driven to the unit. The others loaded the complainant into the tray of the vehicle and you drove him away in the direction of Waverley Lake. What you intended to then do has not been made clear. On the way the complainant regained consciousness and, although badly injured, managed to crawl out of the ute, falling onto the road as the vehicle slowed to round a corner. You saw this happen and left him by the side of the road. You drove his car into the lake and abandoned it before returning to the unit. In the meantime one of the other offenders had gathered up the money and drugs. He gave some cash to other two. You then left with him, with the drugs and the rest of the money, which you divided between you.
At about 12.30 am, the complainant was found by the road. That led the police to evidence, including CCTV, which quickly identified you and the other offenders, and discovery of the weapon and items which had been used to try to clean up the unit. You were arrested four days after the attack on 14 January 2018. All of the others were also arrested around the same time. When you were interviewed you admitted your presence at the unit, and your involvement in violence, although you sought to downplay your role somewhat.
The complainant suffered grievous and life threatening injuries. A description of them is necessary to convey the nature and extent of the crime and its impact. When he was found he still had electrical tape around his neck. He was struggling to breathe. Medical investigation at the hospital disclosed terrible injuries to his head and torso. The following is not a complete list. His face was bleeding, deformed and extensively swollen. The cheekbones, eye sockets and nasal bones were fractured on both sides of his face. His lower jaw was badly fractured and dislocated. In his neck, the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage were fractured. Air was trapped at the base of his skull which suggested disruption of the trachea and oesophagus. There was a left side rib fracture. His left lung was collapsed, bruised and bleeding internally and blood and air were in the chest cavity. Breathing sounds indicated problems with air flow. He was put on a ventilator with a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. He was kept in an induced coma for five weeks. He spent a further five weeks in recovery before he was capable of being discharged from hospital. The physical and emotional impact of the attack remains profound. His life has been permanently affected. He required extensive surgery to reconstruct his face. The extent of the injuries means, however, that there is continuing serious damage and distortion to the structure, nerves and muscles in his face, mouth and teeth, all which have both a functional and cosmetic effect likely to be lifelong. More painful surgery has been undertaken and more is likely still required. His breathing, and his neck, arms, shoulder and leg are also affected. Although I have no medical evidence of cognitive impairment, he experiences mild memory loss, tinnitus and other neurological symptoms, as well as, understandably, serious psychological effects.
You are now aged 27. As a youth you were subject to detention, probation and community service for offences of violence and dishonesty, including aggravated armed robbery and assault. In 2012 and 2014 wholly suspended sentences of imprisonment were imposed for driving offences. Most relevantly, on 19 January 2016 you were sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months from that day, with eight months of that term suspended for two years from your release on 21 July 2016, for about 60 summary offences, including driving offences, drug offences and offences of dishonesty committed during 2014 and 2015 while you were subject to a suspended sentence. It is relevant that your record as an adult does not include offences involving serious violence. By committing this crime you breached a condition of the eight months suspended term which must be activated unless it is unjust. There is no proper basis on which I could reach that conclusion, although activation of that term is relevant to totality.
You have a child aged seven. You have support from your family and the child’s mother, but your life has been dominated by abuse of illicit drugs. Your counsel submitted that such is your struggle with addiction that your family feared you may die. Your addiction has contributed to your offending. It means that you have struggled to fit in and obtain stable accommodation. When facing difficulty you give in to substance abuse and associate with persons who facilitate that. This crime was also contributed to by the drugs you took while you were at the unit. You say that things got out of control, and caused you to act in a way you would not have acted if you had not taken the drugs. That is not mitigating. You took the drugs knowing how they may affect you and cause you to act. The plan was not your idea and your premeditation was formed only on that night, but you joined in. You inflicted considerable violence, knowing and seeing what others were also doing. You punched and restrained the complainant and applied tape to him. You took him away and left him by the road. You are to be sentenced on the basis that you did not kick the complainant or use the weapon. To that extent the level of violence you directly inflicted was not as great as two of the others, but you admitted to the police that you were one of the main aggressors. As a result of your participation you are criminally responsible for all of the violence, whether directly inflicted by you or not. Assuming all other factors to be the same, your sentence should be less than those who first came up with the idea, engaged in greater premeditation and greater direct violence.
These were grave crimes. It is a serious example of both crimes although they arise from the same course of conduct. The main criminality arises from the level of violence involved. The robbery, including the violence intended to facilitate it, was premediated. You and the others, motivated only by money and drugs, lured the complainant into a trap and then confronted him with the combined force of four men. He was subjected to a merciless attack, including with a weapon, accompanied by an intention to inflict serious injury. You then took him away and left him by the side of the road, gravely injured. You have said that you are now sorry for what you did. I accept that you made admissions to the police at the time. I accept that hope for your rehabilitation is not lost, although you have done little to demonstrate that so far. With the assistance of prison authorities there has already been some participation in measures directed to reform. There are two factors which carry weight in your favour. You have pleaded guilty. You were initially charged with attempted murder. In May 2019 an indictment containing the charges you now plead guilty to was filed. The plea of guilty to those charges came within a few months. To that extent it indicates a willingness to accept responsibility and to facilitate justice. It justifies reduction in sentence of 10 per cent. The other factor in your favour is that you have agreed to give evidence in each of the trials of the other assailants. Present indications are that at least two and possibly three trials may be necessary. The State accepts that the evidence will be of some value, although sufficient other evidence of guilt seems to exist. Nevertheless, it is the policy of the criminal law to allow a reduction in sentence in return for giving evidence in relation to co-offenders. That is so for many reasons, including that it is inherently right to assist in the prosecution of offenders guilty of such serious crimes as this, it indicates some contrition and insight on your part, and the indication of a willingness to give evidence is likely to make your life more difficult both in prison and possibly after your release. If you fail to co-operate as you have promised, the sentence may be reviewed and increased on appeal. For that reason I should specify the discount. This case warrants a discount in sentence of a further 10 percent. To round out the final sentence I have reduced the sentence I would otherwise have imposed by something just over 20 per cent. I also state that those factors influence my decision to allow you the earliest possible eligibility for parole for the head sentence, although not for the activated suspended sentence. Of course it will be for the Parole Board to determine any application when it is made. But for those factors I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for seven years with eligibility for parole after four years. You have been in custody since your arrest on 14 January 2018.
Clinton Wilson, you are sentenced to imprisonment for five years and six months from 14 January 2018. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served two years and nine months of that sentence. I order that the suspended part of the sentence imposed on 19 January 2016 be activated and that you serve that eight month term cumulative to the term just imposed. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served six months of that term. In accordance with the Sentencing Act, s 92A, I specify that the total term of imprisonment that you are liable to serve for all the sentences of imprisonment that are being imposed, or activated today is six years and two months from 14 January 2018 and that you are not eligible for parole until having served three years and three months of that total term.