STATE OF TASMANIA v SHELLY MAY FREEMAN 20 JUNE 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Shelly Freeman has pleaded guilty to aggravated armed robbery, stealing and two counts of aggravated burglary. The crimes were committed in Fingal on the night of 25 March 2019 when she, with two other women, broke into two adjoining houses looking for money. One of the other women was Rose-Lee Clark. Both houses were owned by Keith Hefford. Mr Hefford was then aged 76. He lived alone in one house and used the other as a place for visitors to stay and to store some of his belongings.
There was no one in the first house. Ms Clarke climbed in through a window, and let Ms Freeman and the other woman in through a door. They stole a six pack of beer. As to that house, it follows from Ms Freeman’s plea of guilty to aggravated burglary that she admits that she entered a property ordinarily used for human habitation with the intention of stealing once she got inside. The stealing charge to which she pleaded guilty relates to the beer.
The other charge of aggravated burglary and the charge of aggravated armed robbery concern what happened in the house in which Mr Hefford lived. The three women gained entry through a sliding door. Mr Hefford was at home alone and had gone to bed for the night. At around midnight he was woken by noise. The third woman came into his bedroom armed with a baseball bat and carrying a torch. Ms Clarke followed her in, armed with a hammer. Ms Freeman stood in the hallway at the bedroom door. All three females had their faces covered. Ms Freeman later told the police she was wearing cut up tights over her head. The third woman struck Mr Hefford on the legs with the baseball bat and aggressively demanded money. When Mr Hefford said that there was no money in the house, the woman again struck him repeatedly across his arms and legs with the bat and Ms Clarke struck him repeatedly with the hammer. While this was going on Ms Freeman said to Mr Hefford that she had a gun and would shoot him if he did not give them money. The third female looked through the bedroom for money while Ms Clarke hit him again with the hammer. They did not get any money from him, but they stole his mobile phone. They tried to tie his hands with rope, but were unsuccessful because he was resisting. Eventually they fled, taking only the mobile phone.
Mr Hefford used a landline to call his friend who phoned an ambulance. He was taken to hospital at St Marys. On arrival he was anxious, upset and trembling. He had a deep laceration to his scalp about five centimetres long. It was repaired with sutures. He had terrible bruising to his face, torso and thighs. Two lower front teeth and one other tooth were broken. He was in hospital for four days. Since his discharge he has had to have more teeth extracted, and has had to obtain a lower denture for the first time. He has continuing psychological symptoms as the result of the attack, and still experiences pain to his body and head. He is not as mobile as he used to be.
Ms Freeman is 30 years old. She has four children aged between 12 and 6. Her relationship with their father ended as a result of family violence and he was imprisoned. She has arranged that, while she is in prison, the children will be cared for by her mother. Having been encouraged by her brother to go to the police, Ms Freeman was interviewed twice, once on the day after the crime and again two days later. She admitted some involvement but sought to downplay the seriousness of what had taken place and did not admit everything she had done. She entered an early plea of guilty, which meant that it was quickly made clear to Mr Hefford that he would be spared the requirement to give evidence. Ms Freeman has no record for violence or dishonesty but she has a poor record in other respects. In January 2018 she was fined, disqualified from driving and made subject to a probation order for driving offences including two counts of driving with an illicit drug in her blood and three counts of driving while her licence was suspended, all committed in late 2016 or early 2017. Then, in September 2018, she was sentenced to imprisonment for six weeks, wholly suspended, more probation and 70 hours of community service, for offences including three counts of driving while disqualified, two counts of driving with an illicit drug and one count of driving with alcohol in her body and other summary drug offences. Ms Freeman was addicted to methylamphetamine at that time but has not used drugs since that sentence. She has completed all but one day of the community service and was due to complete an addiction programme, but that will not now be possible. The crimes for which she is now to be sentenced were committed while she was on probation and subject to the community service order, and constitute a breach of a condition of that suspended sentence which now must be activated unless that is unjust. I do not regard it as unjust to activate all of the suspended sentence, but in light of the total sentence I will order that it be served concurrently.
This was a very serious home invasion. It was premeditated and planned. The three women formed the plan to commit the crime and organised the weapons and disguises at Ms Freeman’s home in Launceston and drove to Fingal for the purpose of carrying it out. It follows that they expected that violence would be at least threatened. The victim was a vulnerable elderly man who had been living alone for over 20 years. He was entitled to feel safe in his own home. He suffered a terrifying ordeal, was badly injured and will likely suffer the physical and psychological impact of the crime for the rest of his life.
Ms Clarke was sentenced for her part in the crimes on 3 June 2019. She was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with eligibility for parole after 18 months. The Chief Justice contemplated a sentence of something like five years, but reduced it on account of Ms Clarke’s early plea of guilty, her full co-operation with the police, her lack of prior convictions and her remorse. The principle of parity of sentencing means that, all things being equal, Ms Freeman should receive the same sentence. Ms Freeman also entered a very early plea of guilty. However, other things are not equal. Ms Freeman also claims to be remorseful but, although she made some admissions to the police, she did not admit everything she had done. I accept that she may now have come to realise the gravity and impact of her conduct. Ms Freeman had prior convictions, although not for violence or dishonesty, and was on probation and subject to a suspended sentence when the crime was committed.
There is another difference. Ms Freeman was not directly responsible for the application of force to the owner of the house. It is contended that this makes her less blameworthy, but I do not see that her culpability is much reduced. She was an active participant in the planning and execution of the crime. Ms Freeman knew about the weapons and their intended use. She watched while they were used and added to the terror of the victim by making a threat of violence with a gun. Not only that, but it was she who knew Mr Hefford as the target for the robbery because she came from Fingal, had met him, and was aware of his circumstances. Her mother lived across the road.
Taking all of those factors into account, I think that a longer sentence for Ms Freeman is required. It should only vary from the sentence imposed on Ms Clarke to the extent that differing circumstances justify it. Because she has not been to prison before, I will allow the earliest possible parole period. She spent six days in custody earlier this year and so I will take that into account. She was remanded in custody on 12 June 2019.
Shelly Freeman, I make a compensation order in favour of Keith Hefford and adjourn the terms of that order to a date to be fixed. I activate the six week suspended sentence imposed on 7 September 2018 and order it be served from 6 June 2019. You are convicted on all of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years also to commence on 6 June 2019. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served half that sentence.