STATE OF TASMANIA v DYLAN ANGUS GRUNDY, JAMES ENGEL BRADLEY SMIT and KAYDEN GRANT MORRISON 11 MARCH 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Smit, you have pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving and one count of Criminal Code assault. Mr Grundy and Mr Morrison, you have each pleaded guilty to one count of Criminal Code assault.
The circumstances giving rise to your criminal conduct are as follows. On Monday, 8 June 2020, your victim, Mr Kevin Hewitt, signed up for a Tinder account. The following evening he saw a female profile in the name of “Kalinda M”. The profile had an age of 22 on the account and included the details of a Snapchat account. Mr Hewitt started messaging the Snapchat account. The person who replied to the “Snapchats” initially said she was aged 19. When Mr Hewitt specifically asked her age, he received a message indicating she was 17. She sent a photo and appeared older than 17. Mr Hewitt was, in turn, asked to provide photos. He asked if the recipient wanted “naughty ones”. The recipient replied “yes”. He sent pictures depicting his penis.
The initial exchange of “Snapchats” were between Mr Hewitt and Kalinda Morrison. On the evening of the assault, however, Mr Smit and the other two defendants, were at the home of Kalinda Morrison. Ms Morrison informed the accused about her communications with Mr Hewitt. Mr Smit recognised him as the uncle of his girlfriend. Before this incident, Mr Smit had only met Mr Hewitt once before, briefly, at a family occasion. Following this visit, however, Aaliya, Mr Smit’s girlfriend, had informed Mr Smit that Mr Hewitt had touched her inappropriately when she was aged about 9 or 10. Apparently, Aaliya had also told her family of this touching but they did not believe her.
Once Mr Smit had made the connection, it seems he, at least, became involved in telling Ms Morrison what to say, and then all three accused became part of a plan to arrange for Mr Hewitt to meet Ms Morrison at Tea Tree Lane in East Devonport. Messages were sent to this effect. Tea Tree Lane is a remote area in East Devonport and the purpose of setting up the meeting was for the accused to assault Mr Hewitt because they perceived his behaviour had indicated a preparedness to have a liaison with a young female, which to Mr Smit’s mind at least, confirmed what his girlfriend had previously told him.
By this point, all three defendant’s had formed an unlawful common purpose to assault Mr Hewitt, seeking, in effect, to exact a vigilante style retribution. From the time they left Burnie until the conclusion of the assault they all remained participants in the plan.
Because the three defendants had been drinking, they made arrangements for another man, Mr Alexander Strates, to collect them and drive them to East Devonport. They also made arrangements for another vehicle, driven by a female, to accompany them, so that Mr Hewitt would believe he was meeting up with the female with whom he had been communicating. The drive from Burnie to Tea Tree Lane in East Devonport must have taken approximately 45 minutes. There is no suggestion any of the defendants paused to reflect on what they were doing or think through the consequences. Such is reflective of their mindset: they were intent on exacting revenge for what they perceived to have been some wrongdoing. It was, quite frankly, arrogant of them to consider they had some sort of moral entitlement to act as they did. That is a significantly aggravating feature of these crimes.
Upon arriving at the carpark at the end of Tea Tree Lane, Mr Strates, who had been driving his Nissan Skyline motor vehicle, got out of that vehicle and entered the second vehicle which had travelled with them. Mr Morrison was also in this vehicle. Mr Smit and Mr Grundy remained in the Nissan Skyline, although Mr Grundy was asleep in the back seat at this point. As Mr Hewitt entered the car park area, he observed another vehicle also enter and pull in behind him. He became concerned that something untoward was occurring and decided to leave. Before he could do so, his driver’s side window was hit causing it to break, but it stayed in place. He drove his vehicle from the car park and started to quickly drive out of Tea Tree Lane, obviously intimidated by what was occurring. He was followed by the Nissan Skyline that was now being driven by Mr Smit. The second vehicle, in turn, followed the Nissan Skyline.
Mr Hewitt turned from Tea Tree Lane onto Brooke Street in East Devonport. He was travelling at a speed above the speed limit. He was feeling frightened. Smit followed very closely behind Mr Hewitt, in a manner that might aptly be described as tailgating. During the journey, Mr Hewitt made a phone call to triple zero. The recording of that phone call was tendered on the sentencing hearing. It is apparent from the phone call that Mr Hewitt was scared by what was occurring.
After Mr Hewitt turned from Brooke Street onto Tarleton Street, there was a point when he looked into his rear-view mirror and observed Mr Smit’s vehicle still following him, but on the incorrect side of the road and travelling in the lane of oncoming traffic. As Mr Hewitt continued up the crest of the hill on Tarleton Street, Mr Smit continued to drive in the incorrect lane. This driving was observed by a pedestrian, who contacted police concerned about a vehicle being driven on the incorrect side of the road, over the crest of a hill. As the vehicles moved towards the business district on Tarleton Street, Mr Smit manoeuvred his vehicle back into the correct lane but continued to tailgate behind Mr Hewitt’s vehicle.
Mr Hewitt drove out of East Devonport and headed towards Devonport, intending on going to the Devonport Police Station, as he had been advised to do by the triple zero operator. He entered the Bass Highway and crossed the Victoria Bridge. He took an exit down onto Formby Road. Mr Smit continued to follow, very closely behind him. At the intersection of Formby Road and Turton Street, Mr Hewitt braked heavily to take a turn towards the Devonport Police Station. Given the proximity of Mr Smit’s vehicle to Mr Hewitt’s, Mr Smit was unable to react to this sudden turn, and his vehicle struck the rear of Mr Hewitt’s vehicle. The impact was such that it propelled Mr Hewitt’s vehicle into the front corner of a building, whilst the defendant’s vehicle collided with a No Standing sign which was on the roadway.
Immediately following the collision, the three accused exited their respective vehicles, together with Alexander Strates. Mr Strates approached Mr Hewitt and struck him, presumably upset about the collision which had badly damaged his Nissan Skyline. Mr Strates then moved away. The three accused, who, I am satisfied, had by this stage donned face coverings and gloves, then set upon Mr Hewitt as he was crouched over and retreating towards another building on the far side of Turton Street. Mr Hewitt was punched and kicked a number of times. He fell to the ground and further blows were delivered whilst he was vulnerable in this position.
The State allege that one of the accused was armed with a hammer and used that to strike Mr Hewitt on the hand. All three defendants deny any weapons were present. I did not hear evidence on this issue. I will sentence on the basis that no weapon was present but given the ferocity of the attack that was inflicted upon Mr Hewitt, and the injuries that were caused, it matters little in the overall sentencing exercise. This was a brutal and sustained assault, involving both punches and kicks, committed by three men against one. Mr Hewitt was outnumbered, and unable to defend himself. The violence perpetrated was significant, and the injuries occasioned, serious. All three defendants are criminally responsible for all the force applied to Mr Hewitt, from start to finish, irrespective of who, in fact, punched or kicked, because all three defendants shared a common intention to assault him. Together, they had lured him to the remote area of Tea Tree Lane, intent on teaching him a lesson. They all pursued him when he fled, albeit in separate cars. And following the collision, they all exited the vehicles, donned face coverings and launched a brutal attack upon him, determined to cause him harm. To put it simply, they were all in it together. Whilst Mr Smit also must be sentenced for the crime of dangerous driving, as far as the assault is concerned, I can identify no basis to distinguish between their criminal or moral culpability.
As a consequence of the assault, Mr Hewitt suffered a skull fracture and a serious brain injury. A CT scan of the brain showed there was bruising of the left frontal lobe and subarachnoid and subdural blood around the brain in the frontal and temporal areas. There was also a fracture of the occipital bone extending to the base of the skull. There was significant facial swelling and bruising. There was marked swelling in the right eye socket area and also to the left cheek. There was swelling, bruising and abrasions to the back of the head. There was a bruise on the left hand and lacerations to the left fingers. Mr Hewitt was hospitalised for observation for a number of days. His injuries were treated conservatively, and he was discharged without the need for surgical intervention.
As to the dangerous driving, I take into account that there is no suggestion that the speeds involved were markedly excessive. Certainly, Mr Smit drove the motor vehicle at speeds in excess of the relevant speed limits, but the speeds involved were not extreme. It is relevant that the driving occurred in the early hours of a Wednesday morning. There is little evidence to suggest there was a high volume of traffic about, although of course, the potential for there to be road users impacted by the driving of Mr Smit is always relevant. Whilst obviously driving in the incorrect lane over the crest of a hill is inherently dangerous, there is no evidence that any other vehicles on the road were directly impacted by the driving behaviour. The most serious aspect of the driving behaviour, in my assessment, was the constant tailgating of Mr Hewitt from the East Devonport area to Formby Road, where the collision occurred. The tailgating gave rise to the collision because Mr Smit was travelling so close to Mr Hewitt’s vehicle. It is aggravating that the purpose of the tailgating was to scare and intimidate Mr Hewitt and that the manner of driving was for the purpose of facilitating a premeditated assault.
Following this incident comments were made on social media, between the accused and others suggesting the complainant was a paedophile and deserved what happened to him. There was also bragging about what had occurred and indications that the accused may be prepared to do more. Such behaviour is indicative, in my assessment, of a complete lack of insight and remorse.
Mr Smit is now 24 years of age. He was 20 when the crimes occurred. Mr Smit’s criminal history, when these crimes occurred, included a number of traffic infringement matters, convictions for offences of wilfully obstruct a police officer, use abusive language to a police officer, disorderly conduct and common assault. It is of note, that there has been no further offending since these crimes. Mr Smit grew up in a happy and supportive family. He completed Year 10 at high school and since then has held a variety of positions of employment, including as a farm hand, in the forestry industry and more recently, as a driller. He formed a de facto relationship with the female referred to in these comments as Aaliya in 2018. At the time of these crimes, she was pregnant with their first child. Since the crimes, they have remained together and there has been a second child born to the relationship.
On 29 March 2020, Mr Smit’s best friend, Bobbie Medcraft was killed when he was set upon by a group of persons following a dispute and subsequent car chase. I am told Mr Smit was badly affected by Mr Medcraft’s passing and I certainly accept this. He endeavoured, however, to deal with his grief through the excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs. I am also told he felt an immense sense of guilt as he was meant to have been in Mr Medcraft’s company on the evening of his death. Following Mr Medcraft’s death, Mr Smit spent considerable time with Kalinda Morrison, who was Mr Medcraft’s partner. He was endeavouring to provide her with support. It seems, however, that much of the “support” involved the heavy use of drugs and alcohol, and that was certainly the case when he was at her home, in the lead up to these crimes.
At the end of 2000, Mr Smit realised that if he did not make some significant changes, he was likely to continue on a destructive path. Accordingly, he and his partner relocated to the mainland. He spent two years working in Victoria as a truck driver before relocating to Queensland to be closer to his partner’s mother. He obtained employment as a driller there. I have considered references provided by his employer. He is obviously well regarded in his position.
The defendant Mr Grundy is 25 years of age. He was also 20 when the incident occurred. At the time of the crime, he had, by way of prior convictions, only a series of traffic infringement matters on his record. Since the crime, however, he has gone on to commit a further serious crime. On 22 April 2024, I sentenced the defendant Grundy for the crime of trafficking in a controlled substance. That trafficking occurred between July 2022 and June 2023 and involved the defendant being engaged in the business of selling and dealing in a number of illicit drugs, including methylamphetamine, MDMA and cannabis.
By way of sentence, I imposed a 14 month home detention order upon him. He was also required to perform 90 hours of community service. I am told that he has been performing both the home detention order and the Community Corrections order well. There has been no further offending and Mr Grundy has been focused on maintaining his employment, addressing his past drug addiction and stabilising his life. I have a report from YFCC which indicates he has engaged well with alcohol and drug counselling and is showing insight into the difficulties his drug addiction has caused for him. He continues to be employed as a forklift driver.
When this incident occurred, Mr Grundy had significant difficulties with illicit substance use. Indeed, on the night of the crime, he had taken a quantity of non-prescription Xanex and whilst he was part of the plan to lure Mr Hewitt to the place and assault him, he in fact, fell asleep in the car on the trip over to East Devonport and did not wake up until the point of the collision. Nevertheless, thereafter I am satisfied he participated in the brutal and violent assault in the manner in which I have described and in my assessment bears equal criminal responsibility for that crime with his other two co-accused.
The defendant Mr Morrison is 25 years of age. He, too, was 20 when the crime was committed. When the crime was committed, he had been dealt with in the Youth Justice Court for charges of threaten a police officer, injure property and unlawful possession of property, but had not been formally convicted of any offence. Since the commission of the crime, he has committed some driving offences, but there is nothing of direct relevance on his record of prior convictions.
He also is in a long-term relationship. A little over a month ago, his first child was born to that relationship. His partner also has two children from a previous relationship, whom he actively parents. I am told his partner suffers from serious mental health difficulties and Mr Morrison takes on a very active role in the parenting of the children.
Mr Morrison was the brother-in-law of Bobbie Medcraft and he, too, was badly affected by Mr Medcraft’s passing. Kalinda Morrison, Mr Medcraft’s partner, is the defendant’s sister. Following the passing of Mr Medcraft, Mr Morrison spent considerable time with his sister, endeavouring to support her. Again, it seems a number of the gatherings that were directed at providing Ms Morrison with support, centred around drug and alcohol use. During this time, Mr Morrison’s use of both substances increased markedly. I am told he describes himself as going “off the rails” during this period.
He recalls that on the night when he was told about Mr Hewitt’s alleged behaviour towards Mr Smit’s partner, that he felt protective of his sister. He did not want anyone of that character having anything to do with her, and thus agreed to join in on the plan to teach Mr Hewitt a lesson by assaulting him. He says his recall of the actual incident is quite patchy because of his excessive alcohol and drug use that night. I also accept Mr Morrison has made significant changes in his life since the end of 2021. He has ceased offending and his focus is now on supporting his young family.
I say now that I accept all three defendants have made significant, positive changes in their lifestyles since this crime occurred. It is apparent that they have all matured and settled, are now focussed on their employment and families, and have ceased criminal offending. Each of them also appears to have come a long way in terms of addressing their alcohol and drug issues. If specific deterrence and considerations of rehabilitation were the only factors that the Court had to take into account in sentencing, then there is a meritorious argument that I should not impose periods of actual imprisonment on any of the accused. But, of course, such factors are only a part of a myriad of factors that the Court is obligated to consider. Punishment, general deterrence and vindication are obviously significant sentencing considerations in this case.
There has been a considerable delay in this matter being resolved. Delay, per se, is not a mitigating factor, although it is relevant and necessary to take into account the current personal circumstances of each accused. The crime occurred in June 2020. Each defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and the matter proceeded through preliminary proceedings in the Magistrates Court. There were delays associated with those proceedings being concluded because witnesses did not appear. The defendants maintained their pleas of not guilty in this jurisdiction and the matter was listed for trial in February 2025. The defendants initially pleaded not guilty to the charges on the indictment and the trial commenced with a legal argument pursuant to s 361A of the Criminal Code. There was also a Basha enquiry held in respect to a witness, Mr Alexander Strates, who had not appeared during preliminary proceedings. It was only after the legal argument had been held, and Mr Strates had appeared and given evidence on the Basha enquiry, that any of the accused changed their pleas to guilty. It was a very late change of plea.
I do not accept the change in pleas are in any way indicative of remorse. I detect no genuine remorse in respect to any of the accused. I see the pleas of guilty as a bowing to the inevitable, particularly after Mr Strates appeared and gave evidence. I am told Mr Hewitt was briefed in anticipation of the trial proceeding and found that a most difficult exercise. That said, the pleas of guilty still carries some value in the sentencing exercise. Mr Hewitt did not have to give evidence in front of a jury (although I note he did at preliminary proceedings). He was, therefore, saved the trauma of that exercise. It is likely he would have found the giving of evidence difficult, given it is reasonable to infer he would have been cross-examined about sensitive issues pertaining to his alleged inappropriate behaviour.
One of the factors relevant to sentence is the potential for assaults of this nature to result in extremely serious injury or death. I am not told of Mr Hewitt suffering any residual impairment as a consequence of the assault, but the type of injury he sustained can cause ongoing difficulties with brain function. In my assessment, there was a real possibility that he could have been far more seriously injured given the number and force of the blows inflicted upon him by three assailants, all of whom were in a heightened, emotional state. I have not been provided with a victim impact statement from Mr Hewitt, but I have no hesitation in concluding that there would have been a psychological impact upon him. He was obviously upset when he was briefed in anticipation of giving evidence, and it was apparent from the triple zero call that he was scared by what was occurring.
As noted, there has been no offending by any of the defendants for some time now. Since this assault, each has demonstrated a capacity for reform. I must balance the circumstances personal to each of them with the need to punish them for what they did and make clear to others the consequences of such actions. This was a sustained, brutal and cowardly attack. Public displays of violence are to be condemned. When that violence is an act of vigilante justice, the need for condemnation is even more so.
Whilst I acknowledge that there is a risk that a period of actual imprisonment will undo some of the positive progress which each of the defendants has recently made, that, in my assessment, is a necessary consequence of the need to punish a crime of this severity and deter others from acting in this way. A sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentencing option and, given the pre-meditated and vigilante styled nature of this attack, each defendant must be required to serve a part of the sentence I intend to impose, to make clear that such conduct is intolerable.
I make the following orders. I make a compensation order in favour of Kevin Hewitt in an amount to be assessed. I make a compensation order in favour of Alexander Strates in an amount to be assessed. I make a compensation order in favour of RACT Insurance in an amount to be assessed.
Mr Smit, you are convicted of the crimes of dangerous driving and assault. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. I suspend the last six months of that period of imprisonment on condition that, for a period of two years, you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment. I order that you are eligible for parole after serving one half of the operative period of the sentence of imprisonment. You are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of two years from today.
Mr Grundy, you are convicted of the crime of assault. You are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. I suspend the last six months of that period of imprisonment on condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.
Mr Morrison, you are convicted of the crime of assault. You are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. I suspend the last six months of that period of imprisonment on condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.