STATE OF TASMANIA v RILEY JASON CAUSON 29 NOVEMBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Riley Jason Causon, has pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, that is to say robbery committed in the company of others.
On 16 October 2018 at about 1.20 am the 27 year old complainant, Lovedeep Singh Mann, was driving his taxi when he received notification that a fare was waiting at the Northgate taxi rank in Glenorchy.
He drove there and three males walked towards the taxi and got in.
The defendant sat in the rear passenger seat behind the complainant. During the journey the complainant heard the defendant talking with his companion in the back. He overheard them saying words similar to “it’s now or never”.
As they got to McDonalds Moonah, the male in the front seat pushed the centre console open and grabbed the complainant’s leather wallet containing bank cards and $300 in cash. The male left the taxi but not before dropping the wallet. The complainant asked him to give it back. As he said this the defendant reached around and kicked the complainant to his left eye.
On 10 December 2018 at about 2.30 am the second complainant, Syed Umair Javaid aged 24, was driving his taxi when he received notification of fare in Goodwood.
As the complainant drove towards the address he was flagged down by a male in the middle of the road. The complainant pulled over and the male got in the front passenger seat of the taxi. The complainant then saw a second male, the defendant, walk from a driveway and approach the front of his vehicle. The complainant thought he was going to get in the back seat. However the defendant, without warning, opened the complainant’s door and punched him 5-6 times to the face with a closed fist. The complainant managed to free himself and ran away from the taxi. As he did he turned around and saw the males get in the car and appear to be looking through it.
The complainant flagged down two police cars. An ambulance was called him as he had a bloody nose, blood in his mouth and pain in his teeth and hands from trying to block the punches.
Prior to being taken to hospital the complainant asked the police if they could retrieve his phone form the taxi. They were unable to find it and when they called the complainant’s number the phone was switched off. There was also approximately $20 missing from the centre console.
At about 5:50am the defendant was found hiding in the front yard of a house. He participated in a video recorded interview, during which he told police the following:
- On 16 October 2018 he assaulted the complainant so that his friend could get away from the taxi. He did not know that the robbery was going to take place.
- On 10 December 2018 he had been with friends in Grove Road and they decided to call a taxi and rob the driver.
- He was the only one responsible for bashing the driver and was responsible for stealing the money and iPhone.
- He smashed the phone and threw it off the track near a creek as he walked away.
The defendant has been in custody since 10 December 2018. He is entitled to the benefit of his time in custody since 11 July 2019, and any sentence of imprisonment should be backdated to that date.
The complainant, Mr Mann, did not received any lasting injuries as a result of the assault.
The complainant, Mr Javaid, received a broken nose.
I received a victim impact statement from Mr Mann. He was emotionally shaken very hard by the assault. He did not want to go outside or leave his home after the incident. He was frightened and was always looking over his shoulder. He had to go back to work the next day. He looked at all his customers with suspicion and watched them carefully. He had to continue working as a taxi driver as he did not have any option to work anywhere else. He was fearful about driving the taxi again and tried to stay in the city and not collect passengers from outside of the city near where the assault happened.
I do not have a victim impact statement from Mr Javaid.
The defendant is aged 19 years, he was 18 at the time of these crimes. He is thus to be regarded and dealt with as a youthful offender. He has prior convictions for destruction of property, aggravated burglary and common assault, and subsequent convictions to which I will refer in a moment.
He was born in Hobart, one of six siblings, and was raised in various areas in Tasmania. His parents separated when he was young and his grandparents undertook a significant role in his upbringing, ultimately taking on the parenting role for him from the time he was about 4 months old, together with his twin brother. His eldest brother passed away in a motorcycle accident. He had looked up to this sibling and found his passing very difficult to deal with. He also has a close bond with his twin brother. After the death of his elder sibling, he started using drugs to help him cope, transitioning to Ice after the death of his mother. He had abstained and relapsed during that period of time. He is now motivated to return to work.
I have had the benefit of a psychologist’s report which states that from a diagnostic perspective he does not have a psychotic, mood or anxiety disorder. However he has a childhood diagnosis of ADHD and likely experiences some residual symptoms from this, particularly in relation to attentional problems and impulsivity. He has a history of conduct disorder as an adolescent and meets the diagnostic criteria for an antisocial personality disorder. The cognitive assessment along with consideration of his educational history and general adaptive abilities suggests that he has a mild intellectual disability which could affect his ability to make rational decisions and lead to disinhibition.
I have also had the benefit of an extended pre-sentence report which states that the defendant claims that his period on remand and in custody has had positive effects upon him in that he has had time to consider his offending behaviours and realises he needs to adopt a pro-social lifestyle in order to avoid future periods of imprisonment.
He reported being “keen” to be released from custody given the length of his time in prison. He claimed he has changed since being incarcerated and said he now appreciates the support he has from his family. He reported his family had always encouraged him to be pro-social, however said his stubbornness and anti-social acquaintances had negatively influenced him. He claimed if he were released from incarceration he would cease negative associations and spend more time with his family. He reported his grandparents have been very supportive of him and ensured that he did not go without. He stated his biological father had never really been around, and his mother, as I have noted, passed away some two years ago. This significantly affected his behaviour. He reported his anger issues escalated and he started to go downhill. He reported that his elder brother had negatively influenced and encouraged him, and that he no longer has a lot to do with this sibling – that being the sixth sibling.
I note however that during his time on remand the defendant has been involved with a number of internal offences. On the other hard, his grandfather, Peter Causon, reported that he and his wife have made monthly visits to the defendant and have had frequent telephone contact. Mr Causon reported noticing a positive change in the defendant’s attitude and presentation in the last four months. He stated this coincides with the accused being interviewed by psychiatrist Damien Minehan. His grandfather states that the defendant now behaves like a gentleman during visits. He said that he can read the defendant and would know if the defendant was pretending to have changed. Mr Causon is willing to have the defendant reside with him on his release from prison. He also feels that the defendant would benefit from interventions related to mental health support and abstaining from alcohol and illicit substances.
The pre-sentence report concludes that the defendant is assessed as having a very high level of risks and needs. He appears to have issues related to anger management deficits which have impacted upon his behaviour both within the community and whilst in custody. He has demonstrated opposition toward persons in authority. The report adds that the defendant would benefit from interventions aimed at addressing his history of illicit substance and alcohol use, referral to an appropriate mental health provider, and engaging with a service to address his anger management deficits.
Whilst it is considered that the accused would benefit from a period of community-based supervision, there are concerns as to his level of motivation to comply with such an order. Ultimately the decision as to that, however, is mine.
These offences are serious, particularly given the vulnerability of taxi drivers at night, but they are not so serious that the principles governing the sentencing of youthful offenders are to be wholly subjugated to those of general deterrence, retribution and vindication. Rehabilitation is still the prominent sentencing consideration in my view in this case.
As I have said, the defendant has subsequent convictions which were imposed in the Magistrates Court and have seen him imprisoned, so he has now been in prison for some 9 months. He has had the benefit of wholly suspended and partially suspended sentences before, but he has never had the advantage of a community corrections order, including supervision and community service, and made in conjunction with a suspended sentence.
The defendant is convicted of both counts and is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment backdated to 11 July 2019, with the balance from today suspended on condition that he commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years from today.
In addition I make a community correction order for an operative period of two years, which is to contain, in addition to the statutory core conditions, special conditions that the defendant must, during the operational period of the order, undertake 140 hours of community service and must undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as directed by a probation officer, and must submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer.