STATE OF TASMANIA v GARRY LINDSAY ARMSTRONG 20 FEBRUARY 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Armstrong, you have pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property. Overnight on 7 January 2024, a property in Nicholls Street, Devonport was broken into. An unidentified person entered the premises by forcing open a window. That person stole from the property a large quantity of jewellery. The precise value of the jewellery stolen is unknown.
At some point between 7 and 18 January 2024, you received some of the items stolen from the Nichols Street premises. Police executed a search warrant at your premises on 18 January 2024. They found a number of items of jewellery in your shed. This jewellery was later identified as having been taken from the Nichols Street residence.
During the search, police also seized your mobile phone and examined it. Messages revealed that you had already disposed of some of the jewellery that you had received. It also revealed that you had conducted several searches on the internet, looking for places where you could on-sell the jewellery.
It is impossible for the State to quantify the value of the jewellery you received, but you concede it was in the vicinity of $5,000.
You are 61 years of age. You have a very lengthy recorded history of offending, including a great many matters for dishonesty. I stopped counting when I reached 100 prior convictions for matters involving dishonesty.
Most recently, in October 2022, you were convicted for several matters of dishonesty in the Magistrates Court and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. As far as I can tell, that sentencing order would have seen you released in around August 2023. This crime was committed about four months later. Your propensity for dishonest behaviour is simply astonishing. Whilst, of course, you are not to be punished for your record, it is a substantial and relevant sentencing consideration. Your record weighs against a lenient approach. Attempting to deter you from further offending is important, although it would have to be said it appears to be a difficult task. I cannot identify any evidence of reform, or any preparedness to change.
I acknowledge that the quantum involved is not significant, but this nevertheless remains a serious matter. Receiving stolen property supports and encourages theft, and for that reason it generally attracts a period of imprisonment. There is nothing to suggest an individualised approach is warranted here, and there is no evidence of any genuine prospects of reform or rehabilitation which would warrant me suspending such a period of imprisonment.
I make the following order. You are convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.