Semmens, 28, was found guilty of the crime in the Launceston Supreme Court last week and was sentenced this afternoon.

His co-accused, Nathan Patrick Mayne, 25, of Newnham, was found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and was today sentenced to seven years' jail.

The third man charged with Mr Woolley's murder, Adam Jacob Shepherd, 21, of St Leonards, was found not guilty of either murder or manslaughter and was today given a one-year jail term for two assaults committed before and after Mr Woolley.

The victim died four days after Semmens hit him in the head with a length of wood outside his Warring Street home.

CHIEF JUSTICE EWAN CRAWFORD'S COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE . . .

Andrew John Semmens is to be sentenced on the first count on the indictment for assaulting Michael Colin Brooks, on the second count for unlawfully injuring property, and on the third count for murdering Nathan John Woolley.

Nathan Patrick Mayne is to be sentenced on the first count, to which he pleaded guilty, for assaulting Mr Brooks and on the third count for the manslaughter of Nathan John Woolley.

Adam Jacob Shepherd is to be sentenced on the first count for assaulting Mr Brooks and on the fourth count, to which he pleaded guilty, for assaulting Grant Leigh Woolley.

It is ordered that they pay forthwith victims of crime compensation levies of $150 in the case of Semmens, and $100 in the cases of each of Mayne and Shepherd.

All of the crimes were committed in Warring Street, Ravenswood on the night of 21 December 2008.

It is my duty as the trial and sentencing judge to make findings of fact based on the evidence at the trial. I do so upon the basis of established legal principle, that facts adverse to them must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that facts in their favour must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

I am empowered to determine the facts based on my own perceptions and evaluations of the evidence. But at the same time, I may not take a view of the facts that is inconsistent with the verdicts.

It is a particularly material principle for consideration, because it was submitted by Mayne's counsel that in the light of the verdict that Shepherd was not guilty on count 3 of murder or manslaughter, I should conclude that the jury was not satisfied that either of Mayne and Shepherd was holding Nathan Woolley when Semmens struck him.

I will return to that question in due course.

I find that the three prisoners, along with Joshua Holt, set out from a house in Waverley to buy beer and obtain marijuana in Ravenswood.

They found licensed premises to be closed and moved on to a private residence where they obtained marijuana. They then set out for the Empire Hotel in the city, intending to purchase beer there.

They were affected to some extent by alcohol and possibly marijuana they had consumed earlier.

Semmens drove his father's two-door four-wheel drive down Warring Street. Outside number 42 the vehicle collided with a domestic wheelie bin. As a result, some damage to the vehicle was caused.

Semmens immediately became angry about that and looked to see if he could exact vengeance on whoever had put the bin where he hit it. He reversed back up the road and saw Mr Brooks, whose bin it happened to be, standing at his front doorsteps down his driveway at number 42.

He had been inside watching television. In response to the sound of the collision and the screeching of tyres he had come outside. Seeing him there, Semmens drove down the driveway until his vehicle ran into the steps and hit a railing.

The three prisoners quickly got out of the vehicle and went towards Mr Brooks who was standing on his landing. Semmens was armed with a wooden blockbuster handle.

Mr Brooks was accused of deliberately throwing or putting the bin out onto the road so as to cause the vehicle to hit it. He protested his innocence but that had no effect on them. Violence was their aim and pleasure, and certainly not thought or reason.

Mr Brooks' evidence, which I accept, was that one of the men threw at him a couple of punches, which hit him in the side of the head and in the ribs. He had his hands up for protection. Another of the men was immediately behind the first, but he did not know whether that man also struck him.

Mayne pleaded guilty to assaulting Mr Brooks, I infer because he struck him with a fist. I did not understand it to be suggested otherwise. Shepherd admitted to the police in his third interview that he hit Mr Brooks once, but he said earlier in the interview that he had a confrontation with him and that a few punches were thrown. I find accordingly.

I do not find that Semmens struck Mr Brooks. I believe that if he had, he would have used the handle he was carrying. A witness said that he struck Mr Brooks with the handle, but accepted in cross-examination that it was possible that did not happen.

Certainly Mr Brooks was unaware of being hit by it. Another witness said that two of the men were punching Mr Brooks in the chest and head and the third male, who was Semmens, was smashing the windows, with what the witness thought was a baseball bat.

He said that the first two were bashing Mr Brooks at that time. I discount the evidence of a third witness who said that all four occupants of the vehicle went up onto the landing. I do not believe that likely because the landing is very small.

Although it was her evidence that she believed the handle was swung at Mr Brooks, she accepted that she did not know whether it hit him.

I find that Semmens is guilty of that assault as an aider and abettor because, with violence in mind, he drove down the driveway to where Mr Brooks was, got out of the vehicle armed with the handle and by his presence was encouraging the others to attack Mr Brooks.

Semmens then smashed two windows of Mr Brooks' residence.

In the meantime, Joshua Holt had also got out of the vehicle but the preponderance of evidence is that he remained near its front left corner.

The prisoners and Mr Holt got back into the vehicle. Semmens reversed out into Warring Street. They then saw people outside the house at number 39. Semmens immediately drove over the gutter and across the front of number 41, coming to a standstill just before the boundary of number 39.

The three prisoners got out of the vehicle. Mayne went up to Nathan Woolley and held him. Semmens swung a wooden implement at the head of Nathan Woolley, striking his head with substantial force. The blow resulted in his death four days later, on 25 December.

The preponderance of evidence admissible against Mayne supports the finding that he was holding the deceased when Semmens delivered the fatal blow.

I refer in particular to the evidence of Grant Woolley and (name withheld by request). They accepted that in the dark, and in the commotion, they could not see his hands holding the deceased at the time the blow was delivered, but I have no reason to doubt their evidence that they saw two men go up to the deceased and grab hold of him.

That was the evidence of Kyle Chugg as well, although he also conceded that he could not see the deceased actually being held. Lauris Reed, of number 41, was aware of three men going from the four-wheel drive and behind her vehicle in the direction of where Nathan Woolley was.

As I mentioned earlier, it was submitted by Mayne's counsel that in the light of the verdict that Shepherd was not guilty of murder or manslaughter, I should find that Mayne was not holding Nathan Woolley.

The argument was that the verdict revealed that the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Shepherd was holding Mr Woolley. It followed from that, so it was argued, that no such finding could be made against Mayne either.

However, the evidence on Mayne's trial was not identical to the evidence on Shepherd's trial. In particular, on Shepherd's trial, the jury had to consider Shepherd's third interview, in which he admitted striking Michael Brooks and Grant Woolley but denied having any involvement in the attack on Nathan Woolley.

That evidence may have tipped the scales in favour of a reasonable doubt for Shepherd on the murder count. Mayne, on the other hand, did not participate in an interview or give evidence. His version of the events remains unknown.

I do not accept Semmens' evidence that he acted alone against Nathan Woolley. Based on his interview, he is a proven liar, and his evidence was contrary to the evidence of other witnesses, particularly the ones to which I have referred.

I find that Semmens is guilty of murder because at that time he knew, or if he did not he ought to have known, that he was likely to cause death due to the substantial force he used.

I have no doubt that he intended serious bodily harm to Mr Woolley and that, certainly if he had stopped to think, he would have known that he was likely to cause death. I accept the possibility that he did not think of that when striking him.

I make no finding concerning whether the wooden object he used was the blockbuster handle later found in the car or some other object such as the one described by him in evidence as a measuring stick.

Concerning Mayne and his guilt of manslaughter, I am satisfied that he formed a common intention with Semmens to assault Nathan Woolley in conjunction with one another and that the crime of manslaughter was a crime of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that common intention.

He knew that Semmens had armed himself with the blockbuster handle at number 42 and had every reason to think that he would arm himself in the same way.

The obvious purpose of driving to number 39 was to be violent to one or more of those they could see there. I do not consider it to be open on the evidence to find that he deliberately held the deceased to render him defenceless against an attack from Semmens with the wooden implement.

I find that Shepherd assaulted Grant Woolley by punching him. Mr Woolley described it as an upper cut. In his third interview, Shepherd referred to himself as having a fight with Mr Woolley. I am satisfied that it was initiated by Shepherd and amounted to an attack on Mr Woolley. In no sense was it a mutual fight.

I have read the victim impact statements from members of Nathan Woolley's family and from his partner and from Michael Brooks. These crimes have touched many people in terrible ways. Their suffering is enormous.

Semmens was 27 years old at the time. He has had some work in the past. His record includes assaults, offences against police officers, disorderly conduct, dangerous driving and dishonesty.

Earlier in the year of these crimes he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment from 11 January 2008 for a variety of offences that included an assault. He was not long out of prison when he committed these crimes. His sentence of imprisonment today will be backdated to commence on 23 December 2008 to take into account time in custody for these crimes.

Mayne was 24 years old. He has had a little employment. His record, which is a bad one, includes many offences of dishonesty, an assault in 2005 and offences against police officers.

He has had many sentences of imprisonment. In 2005 he was sent to prison for two years six months from 30 March 2005 for aggravated burglary and aggravated armed robbery concerning an elderly man in his home.

He has been sentenced to other terms of imprisonment since. He could not have been long out of prison when he committed these crimes. He has been in custody for them since 26 December 2008.

However, on 13 February this year he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for offences of dishonesty and driving offences. That period will not be taken into account. Accordingly, his imprisonment will be backdated to commence on 26 March 2009.

Shepherd was the youngest, 20 when the crimes were committed. The sentence of imprisonment to be imposed today will be backdated to 11 February 2009, when he came into custody for these crimes.

Aggravating factors include that they violently attacked strangers who had done absolutely nothing to encourage them. They were going about their ordinary lives at their homes, or in one case at a home he was visiting, when the prisoners trespassed and attacked them.

There was not one iota of justification arising out of the collision with the wheelie bin. I agree with Crown counsel that the random nature of the attacks is disturbing. I accept the defence submission that until the collision, violence to others was not planned.

Convictions are recorded for all of the crimes of which they are guilty. Andrew John Semmens, for murder you are sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years from 23 December 2008. I particularly have regard to your record and order that you are not to be eligible for parole until you have served 12 years 6 months of the imprisonment.

For the assault on Mr Brooks and unlawfully injuring property you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment cumulative on the sentence for murder.

Nathan Patrick Mayne for manslaughter you are sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years from 26 March 2009 and particularly having regard to your record it is ordered that you are not to be eligible for parole until you have served 4 years 6 months of the imprisonment.

For the assault on Mr Brooks you are sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months cumulatively on the sentence for manslaughter.

Adam Jacob Shepherd for the assault on Mr Brooks you are sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months to commence on 11 February 2009 and for the assault on Mr Grant Woolley you are sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months cumulative on the first sentence.