STATE OF TASMANIA v NATHAN LUKE DECKERS 12 AUGUST 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BRETT J
Mr Deckers has pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of attempted robbery. These pleas were entered in the Magistrates Court at an early opportunity and confirmed in the proceedings before me. At the conclusion of sentencing proceedings on 30 July 2020, I indicated that I would reserve my decision concerning defence counsel’s request that I have Mr Deckers assessed for a drug treatment order. Section 27D of the Sentencing Act provides that a court considering making such an order must order the preparation of a drug treatment order assessment report. For reasons which follow, I have determined that, irrespective of the outcome of such an assessment, it would be inappropriate to make a Drug Treatment order in respect of these crimes and, accordingly, there is no point in ordering such a report. My intention is to proceed to sentence immediately.
Mr Deckers, you committed the crimes on 2 July 2020. Earlier that day, you collected a package from the post office, which contained a firearm. The prosecution accepts that the firearm was a replica, which I take to mean an imitation firearm within the meaning of the Firearms Act. I will assume that this means that the weapon was not capable of discharging live ammunition. However, it is inherent in the definition of an imitation firearm, and apparent, in any event, from the use made of it by you, and the reaction of one of your victims when it was used to threaten her, that the weapon had the appearance of and could reasonably be mistaken for a real firearm. I understand that it appeared to be a hand-held pistol.
After you collected the firearm, you and an accomplice drove to the CBD in Devonport where you entered a pharmacy and spoke to staff about the location of a nearby bank. You left the pharmacy after doing so, but about 15 minutes later, you returned to it and went inside. Your accomplice waited in the vehicle for you. You then committed the crime of attempted robbery. You followed a 72-year-old woman as she left the pharmacy to walk into the carpark at the back. The woman had limited mobility and was using a walking stick. She was also carrying a handbag. You grabbed the handbag and attempted to snatch it from her grip. However, she resisted you by pulling the handbag back towards her. This physical exchange caused her to fall to the gravel. She suffered minor bruising and abrasions to her body as a result of the assault and the fall. You then ran away. I infer that you returned to the vehicle in which your accomplice was waiting and left the area. Sometime later, at about midday, you and your accomplice returned in the vehicle to the same general vicinity. You got out and walked around the area until you came across the second victim. She was a 63-year-old woman, and was also carrying a handbag. When you were close to her, you aggressively said “Give me your handbag”. You then grabbed the handbag and attempted to snatch it from her, but she also resisted you by tightening her grip on it. You then said “Give me your handbag and you won’t get hurt”. When you said this, you were holding the gun and were pointing it at her stomach. She saw the gun and let go of the bag. You immediately ran off towards the car park, got into the waiting car and your accomplice drove away.
Two days later, your accomplice handed himself in to police and implicated you. You were subsequently located and arrested by police in Launceston. When interviewed by police, you denied involvement in the crimes. However, you pleaded guilty to them in court four days later. The value of the property stolen from your second victim is estimated at around $800. Police recovered the mobile phone, which you had discarded out of the window of the moving vehicle, but according to the victim, it was damaged beyond repair.
Your counsel initially submitted that your instructions were that your selection of victims was random and spontaneous. I indicated that I was not prepared to accept this assertion, unless it was established on the balance of probabilities, and this would have required the presentation of evidence by you. I was then informed that you had instructed your counsel to withdraw this submission. It is obvious to me that you deliberately targeted persons who were vulnerable and, at least as you perceived, susceptible to intimidation. It is no accident, in my view, that you initially entered the pharmacy and then returned a short time later, obviously with the intention of identifying a victim. I have no doubt the first victim was selected by you because you considered her to be vulnerable because of age and visible infirmity. You followed from the pharmacy and then assaulted her with the intention of stealing her property. Clearly, she was not quite as vulnerable as you had anticipated, and was successful in fighting you off. However, in the process, she fell onto the ground and suffered some injury. The consequences to her could have been far worse. This victim has not provided an impact statement.
I suspect that the second victim was chosen more randomly, but this is only because you were undoubtedly acting in haste because of fear that the first victim might have raised the alarm. You probably did not originally intend to commit a second crime, but decided to do so when your first attempt at robbery was unsuccessful. However, you still chose a person who seemed vulnerable because of age. Once again, this victim was initially successful in resisting your assault. However, you then produced the weapon, pointed it at close range at her stomach and expressly threatened her. The only possible conclusion available to her from your threat that she would not get hurt if she gave you her handbag, combined with your aggression and the use of the gun, was that if she did not comply with your demand, she would be hurt, obviously by the use of the weapon. Clearly, you were threatening her with what must have seemed to her to be potentially lethal force in order to overbear her resistance. This seems to be exactly how the victim took your threats. Her impact statement indicates that she was terrified for her safety and has suffered psychological and emotional consequences consistent with such an experience since that time. The consequences described by her are entirely consistent in t he experience of the Court with those often experienced by people subjected to this type of crime. They are consistent with what would reasonably be expected as a result of the use of a gun to directly threaten the victim during the course of a robbery.
You are 28 years of age. You have no criminal history in Tasmania, but you have a reasonably extensive criminal record in other States, in particular Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. Your record in New South Wales includes some firearm offences, but your criminal history generally does not contain offences of violence. You had a good upbringing and have a strong employment history, which includes specialised experience in the construction of prefabricated components relevant to large engineering works. Your counsel submits that you have used illicit drugs on a recreational basis for some years and this would seem to be consistent with your record. However, earlier this year you developed a serious addiction to methylamphetamine. This has had a major impact on your life. Your counsel asserts that you were using methylamphetamine at a rate demonstrated by a cost of $1,000 to $2,000 per week. You lost your employment and, in order to fund your drug habit, you sold everything you owned. You have lost the support of and connection with your family. Clearly, you committed these crimes to obtain money to purchase drugs. This does not mitigate the serious nature of your offending, but the connection between this intensive drug use and your decision to commit these crimes was relied on by your counsel in his submission concerning a drug treatment order.
However, in my view, these crimes are far too serious to make such an order an appropriate sentencing option. I rely generally in this regard on the comments which I expressed in the case of Joseph. While your rehabilitation is an important sentencing consideration, I am satisfied that the predominant sentencing considerations in this case are general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct. These are serious crimes with a number of aggravating factors. I infer from the fact that you obviously arranged to obtain an imitation firearm, went to the relevant area in a vehicle with someone else acting as the driver and waiting to help you effect an escape, and then spent some time around the area for the obvious purpose of conducting surveillance before committing the first crime, that the crimes were premeditated. Further, they were directed, in my view deliberately, against vulnerable victims, and one of the crimes involved the production and direct threat to one of the victims with the firearm. The crimes were committed in the CBD in the middle of a weekday, when members of the public could be expected to be present. I am prepared to accept your early plea of guilty as an indication of some remorse and a willingness to co-operate with the administration of justice. However, the seriousness of the crimes, in my view, demands the imposition of a substantial sentence of imprisonment.
Nathan Deckers, you are convicted of the crimes to which you have pleaded guilty and sentenced to a global term of three years’ imprisonment, which will be backdated to 2 July 2020. I will provide the Parole Board with the opportunity to support any commitment to rehabilitation demonstrated by you while in prison, by providing for your release from prison on parole at the earliest available opportunity. Accordingly, I order that you not be eligible for release on parole until you have served one half of the sentence. I make a compensation order in favour of Karen Maynard in a sum to be assessed, and I adjourn that assessment sine die.