STATE OF TASMANIA v NATHAN THOMAS CHARLES HOWLETT
7 JULY 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant is Nathan Thomas Charles Howlett, who was 30 years of age at the time of the offending. He has pleaded guilty to six counts of assault.
The complainants are Cindy Anne James. Ms James was 58 years of age at the time, and Stephen Howlett, who was 60 years of age at the time. Stephen Howlett is the defendant’s father. Ms James and Stephen Howlett have been in a relationship for some years however, Ms James is not the defendant’s mother.
At the time of the offending the defendant was subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of a Family Violence Order, and he was living with the complainants at Glenorchy. During the afternoon of 31 July 2019, the defendant and Stephen Howlett consuming alcohol at home and then at a friend’s house. The defendant became aggressive and a decision was made that he and the complainants would leave.
While waiting for a taxi Stephen Howlett was sitting on a stool at the kitchen bar when the defendant started hitting him. The defendant was wearing multiple rings and punched Stephen Howlett numerous times to the head with closed fists. Ms James re-entered the house and saw the defendant punching Stephen Howlett. She yelled out to him and said “Nathan what are you doing?” and “don’t hit your father“. The defendant then turned and ran at Ms James and punched her with a closed fist forcefully to the face, causing her to fall onto her back on the ground. The defendant responded “I’ll do what I like, I’m an animal“.
The defendant started to walk back towards Stephen Howlett and Ms James yelled out “don’t hit your father“. The defendant then turned back towards Ms James. She put her left arm in front of her face, protecting her face, and the defendant punched her with a closed fist to the left arm.
The defendant then returned to Stephen Howlett and again punched him multiple times to the head with closed fists. By this point Stephen Howlett was unconscious and slumped down on the stool. The defendant continued to punch him until he fell off the stool onto the ground. The defendant then approached Stephen Howlett and kicked him forcefully to the head, while he was on the ground unconscious, causing blood to come from his ears.
Ms James crawled over to Stephen Howlett to attempt to provide him with assistance. She begged the defendant to let her call an ambulance but he said she could not call an ambulance because police would come. The defendant then threw Ms James’ phone across the room and grabbed her glasses and broke them.
The defendant continued to act aggressively. He ripped his shirt off and walked around the room pumping his fists saying “I’m an animal, I can do what I like, no one can touch me“.
Stephen Howlett regained consciousness after approximately ten minutes and Ms James helped him up onto a dining chair, however he remained dazed and confused, not knowing what was happening or where he was. While Ms James was sitting on a dining chair trying to care for Stephen Howlett, the defendant continually blamed Ms James for taking his father away from him. He approached her on multiple occasions and punched her to the head with a closed fist. On some occasions the defendant approached Ms James and she pulled her jacket over her face, trying to prevent any further punches. Ms James continually apologised to the defendant, in the hope that this would prevent the continued assault. Eventually the defendant did stop the attack on Ms James.
The taxi arrived and took Ms James, Stephen Howlett and the defendant back to [address provided]. They left Mr Triffett’s house at approximately 8.39pm. Ms James did not want the defendant to return to their house but she felt too petrified of him to do otherwise. The defendant moved out of the complainants’ house within days of the assaults.
To explain their injuries, Ms James told people that she had slipped down her driveway and Stephen Howlett told people that he had been bashed by two strangers at the Elwick fish shop.
Ms James lied about what happened to her because she was scared that the defendant would retaliate, and she was worried about what her children might do to the defendant if they found out what the defendant had done to her. However, Ms James broke down in tears and told her general practitioner on 9 August 2019 what the defendant had done to her, after he questioned her about her story and the injuries she sustained. Stephen Howlett lied about what happened to him because he was too ashamed and embarrassed about what his son, the defendant, had done.
As a result of the assaults, Ms James suffered an intra-articular distal radial fracture of her left wrist which required surgical intervention. She underwent surgery on 4 August 2019 which involved the insertion of a metal plate and screws. She also had bruising to both her eyes, her face, and her left temple. Her general practitioner, Dr McCarthy, opined that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress.
As a result of the assaults, Stephen Howlett had significant bruising and swelling to both of his eyes. He had cuts on both ears, with the top of his right ear being particularly bruised and swollen and missing a bit of cartilage. He also suffered from headaches and memory loss following the assaults.
In September 2020, the defendant approached Ms James at Glenorchy Central. He said “I know youse put me in to the police because they told me. And now you’ve told your kids what happened, things are gunna happen and I’ll pay yas back“. The same day the defendant went to [address provided]. Stephen Howlett answered the door and the defendant said to him “I’ll be back and I’ll burn the house down with you in it“.
Following these interactions, Ms James decided that she could not live like that anymore and she needed to make a formal complaint to police. She went to police and made a statement a short time afterwards, and the police investigation commenced. The defendant was arrested on 30 December 2020.
I have had read to me a victim impact statement from Ms James. Her life and Stephen Howlett’s have been irreparably damaged. She is afraid to sleep and does not go out. She has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and significant psychological and physical sequelae left by the assaults.
The defendant was wickedly and cruelly abused from infancy by his mother and also by his stepfather. The details are difficult to even imagine. This brutality and neglect no doubt shaped his life. He undoubtedly has an anti-social personality disorder and suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder himself.
His counsel submits despite his significant criminal history, and despite the seriousness of these crimes, he should be afforded mitigation due to the deprived background that has characterised his life throughout infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and which, it is submitted, have inevitably created the dysfunction in his life that has resulted in his lengthy history of offending. I accept that submission.
In 2005 he was sexually assaulted whilst in Ashley Youth Detention Centre. He is pursuing institutional abuse proceedings, and expects those proceedings will be settled shortly. His experience of Youth Detention was extremely hard because it compounded the problems within his life including exclusion from the family unit, and because of the sexual abuse.
Nonetheless, as is submitted by the State, the crimes are ones where general deterrence, denunciation and personal deterrence are prominent considerations. The defendant committed a number of acts of violence against the two complainants. The crimes were unprovoked and both of the complainants were vulnerable due to their respective ages. Ms James was particularly vulnerable as a result of mobility issues. It is clear from Ms James victim impact statement that the assaults are likely to have a significant impact on each of the complainants for a very long time, if not indefinitely.
The State submits that the crimes involved violence of significant severity and force, and the potential for serious injuries were high. Most crimes on the indictment involved a focus on violence to the head. It is particularly aggravating that Stephen Howlett was kicked to the head while he was unconscious on the ground. It is also noted that the injury to Ms James’ wrist was particularly serious, requiring surgical intervention. The sentence needs to adequately reflect the real potential for grave harm. I accept that submission.
The defendant has a significant history of offences involving violence. Tennent J, when sentencing him on 8 April 2009 for the crime of wounding said “It is clear that you resort to violence easily and that this tendency has not abated since the wounding occurred”. When sentencing him on 19 September 2013 for causing grievous bodily harm and interfering with a witnesses, Porter J said “Plainly, you easily become violent and there is no basis for thinking that you do not understand that substance abuse makes the situation worse. There is little evidence of you making any real attempts to modify your behaviour despite lengthy imprisonment and probation orders to assist you in the community”. In the circumstances it is submitted that specific deterrence is a relevant sentencing factor and I agree.
I note that whilst the defendant did ultimately plead guilty, his plea came at a time where the jury had already been empanelled, all witnesses has been briefed, and both of the complainants were at court waiting to give evidence. Consequently, I accept that the utilitarian benefit of the plea is significantly reduced.
The defendant was subject to a period of suspended imprisonment when these crimes were committed. Application is made pursuant to s 27(4) of the Sentencing Act 1997 to breach the two month suspended sentence imposed on 14 August 2018 in the Hobart Magistrates Court. It was imposed for four counts of breaching a family violence order, six counts of breaching bail, driving whilst disqualified, using an unregistered motor vehicle, and using a motor vehicle with no premium cover. In my view, the sentence was not imposed for similar offending and whilst there is a presumption in the Act as to its activation, I am not satisfied it would be fair and just to do so in the circumstances. I make no order.
The defendant is convicted of six counts of assault and I impose a single sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. The defendant is not to be eligible for parole until he has served half of that sentence.