STATE OF TASMANIA v LUKE MURRAY JOHN JAGO 30 MAY 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
The defendant, Mr Jago, has pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving committed on 4 January 2019. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to related summary charges spread across two separate complaints, as follows. There are three charges of stealing, two charges of driving while not the holder of a driver’s licence, two charges of dishonestly altering or displaying a plate in way calculated to deceive and one each of evade police (aggravated circumstances), motor vehicle stealing, unlawfully take a vehicle, fail to comply with the duties of a driver involved in a crash, and unlawful possession of property. The facts are as follows. In the afternoon of Thursday, 3 January 2019, the defendant entered an unlocked Toyota Landcruiser vehicle, parked on a street in New Town. Attached to the vehicle was a registered trailer. The defendant found the keys to the vehicle inside it, and drove it and the trailer away, in the process of which he stole a carton of beer and the owner’s wallet containing $150 cash and driver’s licence. Later, in a car park in central Hobart, the defendant stole one registration plate from a vehicle owned by a Government department. He then stole another registration plate, from a different vehicle owned by the same department. He then went to the stolen vehicle and trailer where he had left them in a car park in Patrick Street, Hobart. He detached the trailer. He removed the registration plates from the stolen vehicle, and then stole registration plate attachment screws from two other vehicles in the car park. He used the screws to fix the stolen Government plates to the stolen vehicle. He drove out of the car park but was seen by an off duty police officer. At the time the defendant was not the holder of a driver’s licence. In the very early hours of Friday 4 January, the stolen vehicle was seen by various police officers driving firstly west bound on Patrick Street and then along a number of streets in and around North Hobart and Hobart city, until the defendant ultimately crashed into another car near the intersection of Murray and Bathurst Streets. The defendant fled the scene. During the journey of about 8.7 kilometres, the defendant:
- Turned right from Burnett Street into Campbell Street and failed to indicate a change of direction at approximately 60 km/h when the speed limit is 50 km/h.
- Turned left from Campbell Street into Warwick Street and failed to indicate a change of direction.
- Turned left into Brooker Avenue at approximately 80 km/h when the speed limit is 70 km/h.
- Drove along Federal Street at 60 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.
- Failed to stop at a red traffic light at the Argyle Street/Federal Street intersection.
- Turned left from Federal Street into Elizabeth Street at approximately 60 km/h when the speed limit is 50 km/h.
- Failed to stop at a red traffic light at the Elizabeth Street/Burnett Street intersection.
- Failed to stop after an officer in a marked police vehicle behind activated the police emergency warning equipment, thereby evading police.
- Failed to stop at a red traffic light at the Elizabeth Street/Warwick Street intersection.
- Failed to stop at a red traffic light at the Elizabeth Street/Brisbane Street intersection.
- Failed to stop at a red traffic light at the Elizabeth Street/Bathurst Street intersection.
- Turned right into Bathurst Street and drove the wrong way on a one way street towards the point of impact with the other car.
Immediately after the collision, the defendant ran from the scene to Watchorn Street. An officer there told him to get on the ground. He refused, upon which the officer responded, and subdued him. The defendant appeared extremely intoxicated or under the influence of a drug. He was unsteady on his feet, slurring his words, had difficulty holding a conversation and was very confused. He was found in possession of the key to the vehicle and the owner’s credit card. An oral fluid test returned a positive reading. A sample of his blood was analysed, and methylamphetamine, amphetamine, THC and diazepam were detected. He is not charged with that, but it is relevant to the danger he posed. He was then taken to the police station, and was interviewed on the afternoon of 4 January 2019 and made admissions. The defendant said he was aware police were after him as soon as he dropped off the trailer, and he saw them chasing him in North Hobart. He agreed his driving presented a danger to the public. He said something to the effect of hearing voices telling him to hurry up. Based on comments he made and what was found on him, an officer formed the belief he had a lanyard, some keys, and a coin pouch that had been stolen.
The driver of the other car in the crash, Mrs McQueen, was then 75-years-old. She was taken from the accident scene by ambulance to the hospital, with glass shard cuts to various parts of her body, soreness and swelling to her right hand and soreness across her chest. Ms McQueen’s vehicle was badly damaged and was written off. Significant damage was caused to the stolen vehicle. I have a victim impact statement of Ms McQueen. She was on her way to visit her husband in hospital. He had a serious medical condition. She was initially stunned and in shock. The force of the impact caused her dentures to come out. When she put them back in, her mouth and teeth were covered in glass shards from the windscreen. Her injuries have been painful and ongoing. Her left leg has been painful and has a nasty hard lump. Her wrist has been sore and uncomfortable, and she has found it impossible to do things she used to, such a gardening and mowing. She described the bruising as “horrific” and as at the end of March 2019 it had only just cleared up. She was then still very stiff and sore and could not lift anything with her weak hand and wrist. She says she had not had a full night’s sleep since this happened and has been prescribed sleeping pills.
The defendant is 33-years-old. At the time of this offending he was living in assisted shared accommodation. He has a very lengthy recorded history of offending starting in June 2005. Most of his convictions are for offences of dishonesty and ones involving drugs. He also has a recorded history of traffic offences, mostly of a regulatory nature, but which does include four instances of driving whilst disqualified or suspended, and one of driving while an illicit drug is present in the blood. State counsel estimated that there are 113 convictions for stealing. In February 2008 the defendant was sentenced by a judge of this Court to 21 months’ imprisonment on a charge of attempted armed robbery, with an order for parole eligibility after serving 12 months. The sentencing judge then noted that the defendant’s “appalling record” is attributed to his addiction to drugs, a problem that he was trying to address. His Honour observed that during 2005 there was a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment partially suspended, which related to 35 offences involving dishonesty, four involving drugs, and other offences, and that in January 2006, there was a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, again partially suspended, which related to 48 offences involving dishonesty, five offences involving drugs, and other offences. Regrettably, the situation in terms of the defendant’s drug addiction and its consequences remains unchanged. He had only been out of gaol by a little over a month or two before this offending. That was for stealing. The defendant had a dysfunctional and turbulent upbringing after his parents separated before he was born. He was frequently exposed to family violence through the agency of a number of his mother’s successive partners. He was made a ward of the State and apparently moved many times. He left school after year 10 and found things difficult. He has had some work as a labourer, and has some relevant certification. His drug use has been extensive and serious over many years. Entrenched polysubstance abuse seems to have started in his late teens and has largely gone on unabated. Mental health issues have troubled him since he was about 10 years old. As a young man, there are suggestions of bi-polar disorder and ADHD, although a psychologist’s report from 2003 states that he does not have any form of mental illness or gross cognitive deficit. He did meet the criteria for anti-social personality disorder, and was substance dependent. Some psychotic symptoms and erratic behaviour are attributed to his drug use. Generally, he reports as depressed, anxious and paranoid. I have a detailed drug treatment order assessment report dated 13 March 2019 prepared in relation to some of the summary matters before me, and some other dishonesty charges. In February 2010 he was made the subject of a drug treatment order with a custodial period of 12 months, but, steadily accruing sanction days, the order was ultimately cancelled due to chronic dishonesty and poor compliance. The report states that the defendant says he had previously been using illicit substances to numb himself, to function or to be himself, but that this is no longer the case. The author says the defendant was unable to elaborate on this, but the defendant says he accepted his addiction. In the report, the defendant is assessed as a very high risk of re-offending, and was deemed ineligible and unsuitable for a drug treatment order. I am told that more recently there is some more developed insight into his drug addiction and recidivist behaviour. I am told that he has been undertaking therapeutic courses and exercises in prison. These include songwriting and painting and he seems to have had some acknowledged success with the former, expressing himself through the lyrics. He has not taken available illicit substances while in custody. He is anxious to start his sentence so that he can access more rehabilitative courses and programs, and he hopes to be able to fully re-establish a relationship with a woman with whom he has a 6 year old son, and who visits him in prison. I take those matters into account. I take into account the early plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court to the charge of dangerous driving, and I take into account the pleas of guilty on the remaining charges. Those pleas have some value. I take into account the background and personal circumstances as I have outlined them. Although the defendant’s record of driving offences is not particularly serious, that he persistently commits crimes in spite of suspended and actual terms of imprisonment, and a period on parole is a prominent feature. His drug addiction is at the heart of his offending, and that addiction might be said to be traceable to his very difficult formative years. However, in light of his continuing anti-social behaviour, there is a need to have regard to specific deterrence and community protection. I do not lose sight of his mental health issues, but there is no evidence to elevate them in effect to anything beyond background. Parliament has now made dangerous driving a crime, widened the scope of evading police, and increased the penalties to be imposed for that offence. All of this makes it clear that offenders should face heavy penalties. General deterrence is a prominent factor. I must impose a separate sentence in respect of evading police, but otherwise I bear in the mind that the sentence must reflect the overall criminality of the behaviour.
Mr Jago, in your conduct you showed no regard at all to other people’s safety or property. Although your dangerous driving was at a time of night when traffic was light, it was all in an inner city area. Other traffic could reasonably have been expected. Your speed was not particularly high but you disobeyed five red lights. No other road user seems to have had to take evasive action but you did of course crash heavily into Mrs McQueen by driving the wrong way in a one way street. She was injured and significant property damage was caused. It is fortunate no-one was killed or more gravely injured. There is no alternative but to impose a lengthy term of imprisonment. I note your declared intentions in respect to your rehabilitation and hope that this time you can achieve that. I will provide for parole eligibility to cater for that. It will be up to the Parole Board to take whatever steps it sees fit to assist you in your rehabilitation on your release.
On the charge of evading police, charge 1 on complaint 107/2019, you are convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to commence on 4 January 2019. On the charges that make up the course of dishonesty and driving offences, being the whole of complaint 107/2019, and charges 1, 4 and 5 on complaint 113/2019, you are convicted and sentenced to two. years and nine months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 18 months of that second term, making a total non-parole period of 21 months. I record a conviction for unlawful possession of property – charge 18 on complaint 113/2019. You are disqualified for driving for a period of four years to commence on your release. I make compensation orders in favour of Mark Whittaker and Bronwyn Pettit in the sum of $700, Suncorp Group Ltd in the sum of $19,506.70, and Winifred McQueen for an amount to be assessed and I adjourn that matter to a date to be fixed.