STATE OF TASMANIA v JENNIFER HINDLE 5 MARCH 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Jennifer Hindle pleaded guilty to one count of ill-treating a child contrary to the Criminal Code, s 178(1). The person against whom the crime was committed was her grandson, Thomas Hindle. The period of ill-treatment asserted in the indictment was 1 June 2015 to 24 February 2016. It is now about nine years since the relevant events occurred. Mrs Hindle was charged in September 2016. She pleaded not guilty and first appeared in this Court on 30 January 2017. In October 2017 the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was informed that Mrs Hindle had extensive terminal cancer. She had transitioned to palliative care and was expected to live for only a few months. As a result she was discharged from the complaint. It was not until 2019 that the prosecution became aware that Mrs Hindle’s health had not deteriorated as expected. Further information about her condition was invited. An ex officio indictment was filed and Mrs Hindle appeared in court again on 10 February 2023. The matter was listed for trial in September 2024 but resolved to a plea of guilty requiring a hearing to determine disputed facts. To resolve the dispute I heard evidence over a number of days including from Thomas and his younger sisters. My findings were published on 29 November 2024: Tasmania v Hindle [2024] TASSC 71. It is impractical and unnecessary to republish all those findings but some restatement is appropriate.
In early June 2015 Thomas Hindle and his three younger sisters came into the care of Mrs Hindle and her husband at their home in Hobart. Mrs Hindle was then aged 58. Thomas was 12. He and his sisters were the children of Mr and Mrs Hindle’s son, Nicholas Hindle. They were born and had lived in Western Australia but had recently been removed from the care of their parents having been exposed to violence and drug and alcohol abuse within the family home. The children were also badly neglected. Thomas, in particular, was traumatised. Mr and Mrs Hindle agreed with the Western Australian child protection authority that they would take the children in.
All four children remained living with Mr and Mrs Hindle until 24 February 2016 when they were taken away by the police and Tasmanian child protection workers. Because Mr Hindle was employed in Western Australia as a fly in fly out worker there were lengthy periods when the children were in Mrs Hindle’s sole care. In summary, the prosecution case was that, during that period of almost nine months, Mrs Hindle subjected Thomas to an extreme punishment regime designed to enforce a set of detailed and prescriptive rules which she took upon herself to implement. The punishment was both physical and psychological and escalated in the weeks before 24 February 2016. It was alleged that Mrs Hindle created an atmosphere of fear and apprehension, isolated Thomas from outside supports and made him confused, distressed and frightened to complain. It is asserted that conduct of this nature was directed at all the children, but the conduct towards Thomas was the most extreme and the charge relates only to him.
Mr and Mrs Hindle’s agreement in about May 2015 to care for the children could only have been well intentioned. At their stage of life, to assume the care of four children of that age was a daunting, demanding and onerous task to say the least, especially for Mrs Hindle given that her husband would be away from home for much of the time. They had no obligation to accept the responsibility, although they must have felt a strong moral pressure arising from their familial relationship and the apparent lack of accommodation and care alternatives which would have enabled the children to continue to live together. They, along with their son and daughter, all accepted changes to the living arrangements in their home in Hobart to accommodate the children. All of that was inconsistent with a plan or intention to ill-treat the children and was a strong indication of the opposite.
For the detailed reasons I published, I found that although there may have been legitimate criticisms of the way in which Thomas was treated during 2015, the ill-treatment did not reach the level of criminality until late January 2016. The criminal conduct then occurred from around the beginning of the school year in 2016 until the offending came to light on 23 and 24 February 2016 after Thomas was spoken to at school and medically examined. He said something of what had been happening. His head and body were covered in bruises. He was wearing a nappy and had nappy rash. As I explained in my reasons, some of the bruises were self-inflicted, but some were caused by force applied by Mrs Hindle. It followed from her plea that Mrs Hindle admitted some acts, and I found others proved, which were likely to cause Thomas unnecessary suffering or injury to health and that Mrs Hindle did so with an intention or appreciation that they would cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to his health.
My assessment of the evidence of what ill-treatment was proved occurred was heavily influenced by what was shown on recordings recovered from CCTV cameras which had been placed in Thomas’s room. Those recordings show events between 18 and 24 February 2016. Mrs Hindle admitted that what was shown amounted to criminal ill-treatment. When the vision commences on 18 February 2016, all bedding (including the mattress) is absent from the bedroom and the room is devoid of any clothing and personal items. There is carpet but nothing else on the floor. On that day Thomas was kept from school and made to stand in his room with his hands on his head wearing little or no clothing and sometimes a nappy, and sleeping on the floor. On Thursday 18 February Thomas stood for seven hours and 45 minutes between 3.33 pm and 10.18 pm, when he collapsed on the ground and fell asleep on the floor. At times his difficulty standing was obvious. On Friday 19 February the total time standing exceeds 14 hours. On Saturday 20 February he remained standing to attention, apart for a few short periods when he left the room, for almost 13 hours until just before 1.00 am the following morning. On Sunday 21 February the period of standing is about ten hours during which he exhibited periods of obvious distress. On this day some bedding was returned to his room. On Monday 22 February, Thomas returned to school but even after his return at around 4.30 pm he remained in the standing position in his room for about seven and a half hours until just after midnight. At that time he slumped to the ground. His legs and feet were noticeably red. He massaged his legs for a few minutes until he climbed into his bunk bed at 1.35 am. On Tuesday 23 February (the day of the interview at school) Thomas stood to attention for about half an hour until 8.54 am. He is depicted in his bedroom at about 4.30 pm, completely naked, and standing apart from a few short periods until he fell asleep just after midnight. Again, his legs and feet were noticeably red and, to me, his discomfort and unsteadiness when standing was obvious. On Wednesday 24 February (the day the children were removed from the house) Thomas woke at 7.50 am. He left the room for two minutes but returned to stand and fidget until 8.24 am, and then stand to attention with his hands on his head until 8.56 am.
Allegations that a child aged 13 would be subjected to the treatment disclosed on the CCTV would ordinarily be treated with scepticism. For most people, such assertions would seem implausible; so extreme as to be beyond credulity. However, the CCTV provides largely indisputable evidence that it did occur. Thomas’s complaints and his complaints to others about being required to sleep on the floor in his room without bedding and clothing and to stand in his room for very long periods either naked or in just a nappy and a t-shirt with his hands on his head, are almost entirely confirmed by the images. That evidence added to the credibility of Thomas’s account in other respects and affected the credibility of other evidence, in particular Mrs Hindle’s denials of other allegations of ill-treatment. I will briefly state the ill-treatment I found proved but it can only be properly understood when read with the full reasons:
- Mrs Hindle subjected Thomas to the treatment I have described as shown on the CCTV between 18 and 24 February 2016, a period of seven days;
- she removed the bedding from Thomas’s room and required him to sleep on the floor for prolonged periods from early February 2016;
- she required Thomas to stand in the manner identified for other periods during February 2016, in accordance with these reasons, but for periods which cannot be determined with precision;
- on an occasion on which a toilet or toilet brush was found soiled with faeces, she made Thomas stand for hours until he collapsed;
- on an occasion on which there was an argument about doing dishes, she made Thomas stand for such a prolonged period that he urinated on the floor following which his bedding was removed from his room;
- she made Thomas to wear a nappy;
- she knowingly creating a situation where, by express direction or implied pressure, Thomas was to wear a nappy rather than use the toilet;
- she pulled Thomas’s hair so as to cause the bruises and swelling observed on his scalp on 24 February;
- she applied force to Thomas’s head so as to cause the bruises in front of and behind his ear, on his neck and jaw observed on 24 February; and
- in 2016 she made Thomas eat from a bowl on the floor without utensils and called him demeaning names.
Each of the children came into the care of Mr and Mrs Hindle having already been exposed to real and damaging trauma and exhibiting challenging behaviour. The evidence from the children themselves points to that conclusion. Despite their age they had toileting difficulties. I also accept that Thomas was at times oppositional and defiant at home although at school he was not. Problems with the management and care of the children were apparent during 2015. Although there was some ongoing contact with the Western Australian authorities, they were distant and responses were complicated and slow, and Mr and Mrs Hindle perceived a failure on the part of the Tasmanian authorities to provide resources to help them which they thought had been promised. An email sent by Mr Hindle in December 2015 expressed a fear that the difficulties the children were facing were such that he and his wife would be unable to help them. At the same time, I think that it is also true that Mrs Hindle was somewhat defensive about the offers of help which came through the school, perhaps because she thought she knew best. I accept the contention of her counsel also that it is likely that Thomas’s oppositional conduct escalated as a result of him facing the prospect of a new school. He was urinating a defecating and began to self-harm. I think that there is a distinct possibility that this may have been a result of the way he already thought he was being treated at home, but these were not new problems and the effects of his past trauma likely contributed as well.
Mrs Hindle’s plea of guilty is in her favour but does not carry much weight. There has been no expression of remorse, and her police interview at the time demonstrated little insight into the seriousness of what was alleged against her and an unwillingness to accept responsibility. The mitigatory effect of the plea is reduced because resolution of the dispute meant that each child was required to give evidence. The hearing went for many days. Some of the disputed allegations were proved against her although some were not. In any event, I regard the conduct she admitted from the start as perhaps the most serious. She subjected Thomas to what must have been, for him, extreme and damaging psychological and physical torment. I think that how this came about is capable of explanation. Mrs Hindle’s conduct was not, I find, initially motivated by gratuitous cruelty, but evolved from a situation in which Mrs Hindle was became completely unable to cope with the demands on her, and which led to an almost complete loss of perspective and judgment about what was right and wrong.
Mrs Hindle’s health is a matter relevant to sentence both at the time of the crime and presently. In 2009 she was diagnosed and underwent treatment, chemotherapy and radiotherapy for breast cancer. The treatment ceased in 2010 and it was, she was told, successful. In mid-2015, however, symptoms returned and in late 2015 she was diagnosed with breast cancer with secondary cancers in her lungs. On 23 February 2016, albeit at the very time the offending was discovered, she was told that the cancer was incurable. I will return to her current condition later.
I conclude that it was the likely result of the combination of all of the circumstances which preceded these events that Mrs Hindle was no longer able to cope rationally with caring for the children, and Thomas in particular. No right thinking person could think that to treat Thomas in such an extreme way could possibly have been justified, or was likely to change his behaviour or help him in any way. None of it was spontaneous. Her lack of perspective and loss of judgment was such that her response, as she now admits or I have found, amounted to ill-treatment which she appreciated would cause him unnecessary suffering.
I accept the submission of senior counsel for the State the ill-treatment had an extreme character. Thomas was degraded and demeaned without regard to his apparent distress. There were multiple instances of escalating cruelty. Thomas’s sisters were aware of what was happening and were distressed by it. The criminal conduct constituted a breach of the trust placed in Mrs Hindle by the authorities, but far more importantly the trust placed in her by Thomas, who was vulnerable not only by reason of his age but also because of his past experience. This crime, when committed against very young children, is difficult to detect. That is a factor of less importance here, because it became readily apparent to others that something was wrong and Thomas was able to speak up for himself, as he ultimately did. Even so, there was a risk that he may not be believed. The physical effects were transient but still significant. Thomas was found with serious bruises on the left side of his face and head which I found were caused by the defendant. In addition, his scalp was bruised and swollen from hair pulling. His legs were red and swollen from the prolonged standing and he had nappy rash. It is the psychological impact which is most significant. Thomas has been diagnosed with PTSD, depression and anxiety. It is not submitted that all of this was caused by the crime, but I have little doubt that it made an already bad situation even worse. This is borne out by the victim impact statement in which Thomas expresses the humiliation and cruelty he experienced. He left behind one traumatic situation only to enter a new one. He continues to experience difficulty in trusting others and forming lasting friendships or romantic relationships. He seeks assistance from doctors, counsellors and mental health professionals.
Mrs Hindle is now aged 68. She still lives in the same house with her husband, who remains in the same employment. They have six children, all born in Western Australia. The youngest is 30 and the oldest is 45. She and her husband moved to Tasmania in 2004. As I have explained her cancer returned in 2015. By 2018 her oncologist reported that she had only weeks or short months to live. However change to a novel form of medication, I infer as something of a last resort, led to an unexpected improvement. Nevertheless there are signs of progression of the disease. In 2022 it was discovered in her liver and in 2024 in her spine. There is still cancer in her lungs and she requires oxygen for breathlessness. She also has osteoporosis and type 1 diabetes. She requires quarterly PET scans to monitor the development of the disease and she has a punishing daily medication regime. She spends her day either in bed or sitting. She moves with the assistance of a wheelchair. When her husband is away her son is her primary carer. She does not leave home except to attend medical appointments and to do so she needs help from her son or husband. Her disabilities are such that a mechanical lift has been installed to enable her to navigate a small set of stairs in her home.
All of this makes sentencing is a difficult exercise. Mrs Hindle has no relevant prior convictions. It is obvious that there is very little chance of something like this ever happening again and so specific deterrence is not a factor of any weight. A community correction order would serve no point. Nor, in my view, would home detention. She does not leave home anyway. In my view, to serve the need for general deterrence, to appropriately mark the seriousness of the crime and for vindication of the victim I regard imprisonment as the only appropriate sentence. However her circumstances are such that, for her, actual imprisonment is far more onerous that it would be for a person without her health problems. She would have not have access to the medication and treatment she requires if in prison. One example is sufficient to demonstrate that proposition. One of her numerous prescribed medications is MS Contin which she requires twice daily to manage pain. She has re-engaged with her palliative care team. I think it very likely that Mrs Hindle would die in prison. But for those factors I would have almost certainly have required that she serve at least part of the term. However, I will wholly suspend the term I am about to impose.
Jennifer Hindle, you are sentenced to imprisonment for two years. I wholly suspend that term for two years from today. It is a condition of that sentence that you not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition you will be required to serve the term imposed unless that is unjust.