DPP loses appeal of pair’s sentences for vigilante attack

An appeal of two men sentenced to home detention orders for a vigilante attack on a Glenorchy man they mistakenly believed had committed a sex crime has been lost. FIND OUT WHY >>

Jhye John Webb leaves the Supreme Court of Tasmania in 2019.

TWO vigilantes who attacked a Glenorchy man they mistakenly believed had committed a sex crime will not spend a day in jail after the Director of Public Prosecutions lost their appeal.

Jhye John Webb and Joshua Phillip John King avoided prison last year after they were sentenced in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for their April 2017 attack.

The court had heard the victim had tried to defend himself with a hammer, but was left beaten, his head stomped and more than two years later still had a weak right arm, could not pick up items with his left hand, and could not wear his lower dentures because of damage to his lower jaw.

Armed with a tomahawk, Webb, 36, led a group of four other men to the victim’s house after a woman said she had been indecently assaulted.

MORE CRIME NEWS:

• Court hears of teen obsessed with child porn
• Judges throw up drunken basher’s appeal
• Man pleads guilty to serious sex crimes

King, 38, was one of the group that carried out the “orchestrated attack”, forcing their way into the victim’s house, dragging him out and beating him.

Webb pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, wounding and assault, just before his trial was due to begin, while King was found guilty of the same charges by a jury.

Acting Justice David Porter sentenced Webb to a suspended 15-month prison sentence and an 18-month home detention order with a community correction order of one year.

King received a 15-month home detention order and an 18-month community correction order, which included 175 hours of community service.

The DPP appealed the sentences’ as “manifestly inadequate”.

On May 19, Chief Justice Alan Blow and Justices Helen Wood and Stephen Estcourt dismissed both appeals, reserving their reasons for publication at a later date, which have now been published.

Chief Justice Blow said Webb had an acquired brain injury, an IQ of 61 and his wife had to assist him with daily living.

“It is clear imprisonment would be unusually onerous for him not just for those reasons, but also because a period of imprisonment would be likely to undo a great deal of hard work he and his wife have put in since 2016 in overcoming the consequences of his brain injury and helping him to lead a normal life,” he wrote.

“I accept the sentences imposed on these two respondents were lenient. However, the critical question is whether the sentence is “unreasonable or plainly unjust”. In this case I concluded the sentences imposed on both respondents were not manifestly inadequate, particularly having regard to the personal circumstances and, in Mr King’s case, the minor role he played in the attack.”

Justice Wood said the offending was “very serious,” but “not at a level of gravity in terms of violence and harm that an immediate term of imprisonment was the only just sentence.”

Justice Estcourt said the sentences were sufficient to address general deterrence and would not be perceived by the community as “no punishment at all” or “a let off.”