STATE OF TASMANIA v JYE DAVID COWEN ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 15 MAY 2020
The defendant, Jye David Cowen has pleaded guilty to one count of using a prohibited firearm contrary to s 9(1A)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996 and one count of unlicensed dealing in firearms contrary to s 11(1) of that Act.
On 4 December 2017, police were driving in the Risdon Vale area when they saw a utility travelling past them with three males inside.
Subsequently, they found the vehicle bogged in a paddock. Two of the males ran into nearby bushland. Detective Ortuso ran after the other two males. He saw the defendant carrying what appeared to be a rifle bag. He saw the second male, who he identified as the defendant’s brother, Kain Cowen, run into the bush.
A short time later he apprehended the defendant, who was no longer in possession of any items. Additional police arrived to help search the area for the item the defendant had discarded. What was located was $5700, a black wallet and a long .22 magazine containing 16 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition.
Police also located a ZTE mobile phone which belonged to the defendant. He provided police with the unlock code. That phone was subsequently examined by forensic officers and three video clips were found, which were recorded on 23 November 2017, all showing the defendant in various attempts to discharge and actually discharging a .22 calibre modified automatic firearm.
A police ballistics expert reviewed the footage and identified the firearm as a .22 calibre Gevarm self-loading (semi-automatic) rifle in a heavily modified form, and fitted with a sound suppression device. It was capable of operating in full automatic mode. Such weapons are prohibited under the Firearms Act, and moreover, the defendant did not have a firearms licence. It is also a prohibited firearm because it had a sound suppressing device attached to it.
Police also extracted a text message from the defendant’s mobile phone to the defendant’s brother and another person, with photographs of a firearm which the defendant was endeavouring to sell.
It is the State’s case that the defendant was dealing in firearms. “Deal” in relation to a firearm means to possess firearms and firearm parts for the purpose of sale, transfer, storage or testing. It does not actually require, as Mr Ogden points out, that any firearm to be sold. The firearm the defendant was endeavouring to sell was apparently a Luger pistol but modified pistol.
The defendant was born in Hobart, and was educated to a year 10 level. He is 28. He has aboriginal heritage. He is single and has no dependents. He has a very close relationship with his parents and his siblings. Before he was remanded in custody on an unrelated matter, he was boarding at 52 Lantana Road in Risdon Vale. He was employed on a casual basis as a roof plumber.
He has a good industrial record; he has previously been employed as a roofing contractor, and has spent time in other labouring roles as a plasterer and again as a deliveryman.
He has also spent some time in his own business venture, with a lawn mowing and gardening business. When he has experienced bouts of unemployment, he has supplemented his income by harvesting and selling wood.
He has some summary convictions which are relevant, and has some subsequent offending.
As to the first count, one of the defendant’s acquaintances provided the weapon in question while another acquaintance filmed the firing of the gun. The accused is filmed possessing the gun for approximately 90 seconds and firing the weapon.
As to the second count the defendant sent a text to his brother about being able to sell the pistol on his behalf. In the short period of time he had it, there were no offers to buy it. He gave it back to people who wanted him to sell it. He had it in his possession for 12 days.
Firearms offences such as these are serious and will usually always attract prison sentences, because the presence in the community of prohibited weapons and unlicensed dealing in them is almost invariably associated with serious criminal activity. That is why these offences are indictable offences dealt with in this Court. Having said that, the relatively fleeting involvement of the accused with the guns in question somewhat ameliorates the gravity of the crimes. I also note the defendant’s pleas of guilty.
The defendant is convicted and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment backdated to 10 November 2019.
I make an order pursuant to s 16 of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act that the .22 magazine be forfeited to the Crown.