Contested matters and objective seriousness
- Mr Thompson was arrested on 3 March 2020. In a recorded interview, he denied the offences, asserted that Mr Campbell took his car for a period of time in the early hours of 3 December 2019, denied he was in the CCTV footage, accepted that his hat looked like one on a person in the footage but asserted that it was a common hat, denied going to the Rydalmere Tavern, said he would never drive off with someone partly in his car, that he had a conscience, he would have stopped to make sure they were okay, and denied organising for his car to be towed and cleaned.
- Thus, in short: Mr Thompson was driving his motor vehicle, Mr Campbell was a passenger in that vehicle, either Mr Thompson, Mr Campbell, or both, organised through Grindr to meet up with the complainant victim, who they did not know, to buy prohibited drugs, and as the result of a dispute Mr Thompson released the handbrake and accelerated south on Euston Street while the complainant held onto the car. Part of the complainant's body was inside the car as she had lent inside to provide the drugs. After the vehicle travelled about 50 metres from the Rydalmere Tavern, the complainant lost her grip and fell from the car. Mr Thompson continued to drive away. The complainant suffered a number of really serious injuries as a result of the car dragging her, and her falling off. At no point did Mr Thompson stop the car to render assistance. Mr Thompson and Mr Campbell then returned to Mr Thompson's home.
- Both Mr Campbell and Mr Thompson gave evidence about the event, each attributing to the other the organisation of the drug deal. Further, Mr Thompson gave evidence that Mr Campbell screamed at him to "Go, go go", [9] whereas Mr Campbell gave evidence that he told Mr Thompson to "Stop" or "go back". [10]
- Mr Campbell accepted in evidence that he did not tell the police that he had met Mr Thompson on Grindr, but had met through friends. Nor did he tell the police that the drugs were ice or methamphetamine, and in respect of him contacting the lady for drugs, he first asserted that he did not recall that, although subsequently was adamant he made no contact with her, did not receive the drugs from her, and was a mere passenger. He accepted that he had been convicted of robbery when he was 16. He similarly asserted that he did not remember telling Mr Thompson to "Go, go, get the fuck out of here," [11] but subsequently asserted that he said, "I told him to go, go back", [12] and that Mr Thompson refused. Thus, there were problems with Mr Campbell's evidence.
- Mr Thompson adhered to his account in his evidence. However his evidence was also problematic. He was aware that this was a drug deal. He knew that he had sharply accelerated when the complainant was at least partially inside the vehicle, [13] that it was a dangerous situation when he sped off, [14] but he subsequently told the interviewing police repeatedly that he would "never do such a thing" [15] as drive off with someone hanging out of the window even though he had told Mr Martin that, as I quoted earlier, "the girl held onto the car and he shook her off the vehicle". Mr Thompson also told the police that Mr Campbell had borrowed his car, that the CCTV footage of him was not of him, and that he would stop to make sure the person was okay. Each of these things he knew to be false. He also knew that the woman had not been paid for the drugs, [16] and he accepted in the agreed facts that the complainant was screaming as he drove away, although he denied that in evidence.
- I am satisfied that Mr Thompson lied to the police about his involvement in the incident and made up a false account of Mr Campbell borrowing his car in order to absolve himself from responsibility for a crime he knew he had committed. In evidence he expressed some regret for misleading the police. [17]
- Mr Thompson denied in evidence that he had made arrangements to have his car towed or cleaned in any way, but he, in his texts, and in the agreed facts, sought to cover up his crime by "sorting out the Calais and to make sure what happened doesn't come back to us" as he texted. His lies were particularly brazen and central to the offence when he said, knowing to be false:
"Q. The female fell off and you kept going?
A. I would never take off with somebody still attached to my car and if they did and if they did fall off I would have, I would, I've got a conscience I would stop. Even if I was a bystander I would still stop to make sure they were okay." [18]
- I think it more likely than not that Mr Campbell did tell Mr Thompson to go initially, given Mr Campbell's unsatisfactory evidence on this point, but otherwise I was inclined to favour Mr Campbell's account of the circumstances that led to the interaction with the complainant. However, I was not satisfied of this beyond reasonable doubt, and I should not conclude this matter adverse to Mr Thompson. [19] In particular, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Campbell encouraged Mr Thompson to stop and attend to the victim, nor that I should find that the offence was committed in company, or that even if it were, this matter in the circumstances was properly to be regarded as an aggravating factor. [20]
- However, Mr Thompson's texts, Mr Martin's recollection, and the evidence of Mr Thompson and Mr Campbell, satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Thompson was knowingly involved in a drug deal. He decided to drive off and accelerate away knowing, by her presence and scream, and his manner of driving, of the continuing peril to Ms Huang. I do not accept that Mr Thompson believed the victim had a weapon. I think little significance is to be attributed to Mr Campbell telling Mr Thompson to go in Mr Thompson's decision to continue to accelerate with the complainant in the extremely precarious situation of being partly within the car, holding on.
- I accept that it was a spontaneous, spur of the moment decision by Mr Thompson to drive off. But he knew Ms Huang was partly within the car, and his continued conduct to accelerate as the victim held onto the car, and the admitted intention to recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm, are not so spontaneous. That conduct involved brief consideration and it was a seriously morally culpable decision to continue.
- I have considered the matters of aggravation and mitigation listed in s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Any of those aggravating factors listed that are present here, such as matters in paras (2)(i) and (ib), are inherently part of the offence and so do not serve to aggravate it.
- As indicated by the comparative cases with which I was provided, commonly the offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to a person involves direct action like punching, sometimes involving the use of a weapon. Mr Thompson did not bring a weapon but, for the few seconds as he accelerated whilst the complainant held on, his car became like one. At that stage, he was aware of the danger and persisted in the conduct. This conduct was in intentionally accelerating knowing of the danger and being reckless as to the extent of the complainant's injuries. His recklessness, in my view, would be toward the middle of the range, only slightly below what I would regard as the mid-point because of the brevity of the period where he was in control of a dangerous weapon, namely his accelerating car, with the victim holding on.
- The complainant's injuries involved not only fractures to her face, a spinal injury and head swelling, but also a brain injury involving three weeks in a coma, and seven weeks in hospital, as well as facial droop, sight and hearing loss problems, neurological damage and substantial pain. These injuries, taken together, are not at the low end of the range of grievous bodily harm, but persuade me that they are more towards the middle of the range, a descriptor which is apt to describe the relative objective seriousness of the offence.