Judge erred in case of man who struck teens with car, court hears

Earlier this year, Tayler Hazell was jailed for 13 years and two months, with a non-parole period of nine years after a hit-and-run incident in March, 2025.

He's appealed the sentence on seven grounds, including arguing the ACT Supreme Court judge didn't appropriately account for factors including his upbringing, remorse and extra-curial punishment suffered as a result of his treatment by police.

Lawyers for a man jailed for hitting two schoolboys with a stolen car in Canberra's south have argued the judge made multiple errors in sentencing, and did not give appropriate weight to his childhood or his expressions of remorse.

In March last year, Tayler Hazell took the green Holden Commodore from outside a childcare centre in Sutton, New South Wales.

The 8-year-old daughter of the car's owner was sitting in the back seat.

Hazell drove a short distance before saying to her, "Oh, you're a girl," and stopping to let her get out.

Under the influence of drugs, Hazell continued to drive erratically — hitting a car near a school in Queanbeyan and damaging a barrier on a safety crossing before speeding on into the ACT.

Two boys, aged 14 and 15, suffered serious injuries when they were struck by the car as they waited to cross the road outside St Edmund's College in Griffith.

Hazell continued at speed towards the Manuka shops, where he crashed.

He'd already been handcuffed by Australian Federal Police officers when Tactical Response Group members arrived on scene, and he was slammed to the ground — causing him facial injuries and bleeding.

He pleaded guilty to multiple offences including two counts of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm and stealing a car.

Earlier this year, ACT Supreme Court Justice John Burns sentenced Hazell to 13 years and two months behind bars, with a non-parole period of nine years.

Before a full-bench hearing of the Court of Appeal today, his lawyer Sarah Baker-Goldsmith said the judge had made numerous mistakes.

Among the seven grounds of appeal, she argued Justice Burns didn't give appropriate weight to Hazell's deprived childhood, his expressions of remorse, the risk of institutionalisation and the extra-curial punishment he'd suffered due to the injuries sustained during his arrest.

"But it is his entitlement to be sentenced according to law."

Prosecutors argued Justice Burns had taken the disputed factors into account — including in considering whether Hazell was remorseful, with a finding that he'd attempted to reduce his culpability by lying about being unaware the girl was in the back of the car when he stole it.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision for a later date.

In a separate matter, Hazell is suing the federal government over the force used by AFP officers during his arrest, which an investigation found breached professional standards.

Hazell is seeking damages for injuries, fear and embarrassment suffered as a result.