STATE OF TASMANIA v JAMIE ADAM CRAWFORD ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 28 JUNE 2019
The defendant Jamie Adam Crawford has pleaded guilty to one count on indictment of going armed in public. I have also agreed to deal pursuant to s 385A, with charges 1 (possessing a firearm for which a licence may not be issued), 4 (breach of a family violence order to surrender and not possess firearms) and 5 (possessing body armour without a permit), each of which is on complaint 9337/18, and to each of which the defendant has pleaded guilty to.
The defendant, was 46 years old at the time of these offences, and is now 47. The offences occurred on 28 September 2018, and at the time he was living at 14 Sun Valley Road in Old Beach with his mother Janet Carlson.
On 17 September 2018 the defendant was issued with a police family violence order which included conditions that he surrender any firearms in his possession to a police officer, as well as the usual conditions.
At about 4 pm on 28 September he left the house with the family’s two dogs. His mother described him as calm, but in a hurry to get to the bus stop where she believed he was going to meet his girlfriend.
At about 4:15 pm Trent Griffiths saw the defendant, who he recognised, walking the dogs down the street. The defendant stopped and they spoke about football. He was wearing a navy jumper with a black holster containing a black imitation glock firearm over his jumper on the area of his right hip. The holster and firearm were fully exposed.
Shortly after Mr Griffiths told his wife what he had just observed. They drove around the block looking for the defendant and saw him standing at the bus stop in Jetty Road opposite the park and oval. He was described as leaning against a pole at the bus stop with his right hand resting on the firearm. Mr and Mrs Griffiths believed the firearm was real. As a result, they travelled to the Bridgwater Police station where they reported what they had observed.
The defendant returned to his home about twenty minutes after he had left.
Two officers attended 14 Sun Valley Drive. The defendant was placed under arrest and moved to the divisional van, and then entered the premises. They located
- A black glock-style replica firearm (shown in photograph 1);
- A black M4-style replica firearm (shown in photographs 2 and 3);
- A black M4-style replica magazine (shown in photograph 3);
- A ballistic style vest (shown in photograph 4);
- A black holster (shown in photograph 5); and
- A black utility belt (shown in photograph 6).
The defendant has no relevant prior convictions but the Crown make application, pursuant to s 27(4) of the Sentencing Act, with respect to the breach by the defendant of an order suspending sentence which was imposed in the Hobart Magistrates Court on 25 May 2017 upon the defendant’s plea of guilty to a charge of exceeding .05 and a charge of using abusive language to a police officer on complaint 2872/2017.
Counsel for the defendant has made submissions as to the relevant considerations which should properly be taken into account when considering whether it would be unjust to activate the sentence (as outlined at paragraph 37 of Moore v Salter [2018] TASSC 18 at [36] – [39] ).
As to the nature and circumstances of the offences for which the sentence was originally imposed, counsel for the defendant points out that the suspended sentence imposed on 25 May 2017 was for an offence of drive a motor vehicle while exceeding prescribed alcohol limit on 3 March 2017, and was only imposed for that matter and not on the conviction for abusive language, where a fine was imposed.. I think that submission should be accepted.
Counsel submits that the offence for which the sentence was originally imposed is of a different nature and that the suspended sentence of 1 year 4 months was imposed prior to the commission of the present offences. There have not been any further offences of a traffic nature since that time.
I accept those submissions, in my view, it would be unjust to activate any part of the suspended sentence. I find that the breach is proven but I make no order on respect of it.
Despite an unstable family environment, the defendant was educated to Year 12. Following school he commenced work as a laborer work and a trades assistant at Aurora. He worked full-time in that position for 4 years, and as a truck driver for around 8 – 10 years. He stopped work in 2006 due to ongoing issues with a heart condition. He is currently in receipt of a Disability Support Pension.
The defendant has a significant history of health issues. At ages 13 and 38 he underwent heart surgery and is required to take daily medication for his heart condition. He has weekly blood tests, and has had for the past 10 years. He suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression and was as recently as 18 April 2019, diagnosed with bowel cancer.
As with the sentence in the case of Mansell (10 February 2017), which involved only one imitation firearm but which wreaked havoc when taken into a school ground, the present case presents a somewhat difficult sentencing problem. Offences related to firearms are serious offences. So too are breaches of Family Violence Orders and the possession of non-legally useable items such as body armor.
The present case must however be distinguished from instances involving real firearms, especially loaded firearms. As Pearce J said in Mansell, even instances involving replica firearms sometimes attract actual sentences of imprisonment although that is usually because the replica is used in a threatening way. The defendant did not expressly threaten or intend to scare anyone. The culmination of him not taking his prescribed medication and the ingestion of alcohol may have impaired his judgment on the day, and led to the lack of appreciation of the potential impact on his conduct.
A large fine is not an appropriate penalty, in my view, and the defendant would clearly not be suitable for community service. However, again, as Pearce J said in Mansell, a sentence is required to condemn what he did, to vindicate the interests of the community, and to attempt to ensure that he thinks twice before acting in this way again. The possession of the combat style assault rifle is particularly relevant in this regard as is the possession of firearms in breach of the Family Violence Order.
The defendant is convicted of each charges to which he has pleaded guilty, and I impose a single sentence of 4 months imprisonment, which in all of the circumstances including those of the defendant’s health, I wholly suspend for a period of 12 months from today on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment during that period.
Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, I make an order of forfeiture in respect of the glock firearm valued at $110 and the M4 rifle valued at $190.
Pursuant to s 15 of the Police Offences Act 1935, the body armour has been forfeited and I order that it be destroyed.