STATE OF TASMANIA v JAYDE GARY JETSON 11 OCTOBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Mr Jetson, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to a number of offences arising out of a course of events on 19 June 2019. Those offences are dangerous driving, evade police (aggravated circumstances), driving without a licence, trespass to a building, possessing a controlled plant, possessing a restricted substance and possessing a controlled drug. All but the first of these I am dealing with pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code. The facts of these matters are as follows. The starting point is that on 1 May 2019, the defendant appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court on a number of charges, including motor vehicle stealing, and was bailed to appear at a later date. Conditions of the bail were that he live at an address in Ravenswood and that he report each Tuesday and Thursday to the Launceston Police Station. About 9.40am on Wednesday, 19 June 2019, police officers were travelling south on the Brooker Highway in Hobart in a marked police car. The defendant was seen to be driving a Holden motor vehicle in the left hand lane in a southerly direction. There was a passenger in the car with him. The police followed. The defendant drove from the Brooker Highway towards the Tasman Bridge on Domain Highway. Just before the Botanical Gardens car park, police activated lights and sirens. The defendant did not pull over but accelerated away driving in the lane designated for the city. As the defendant approached the Bridge, he crossed back over a solid white line into the Bridge lane without indication, cutting in front of a vehicle in doing so. The defendant drove across the Bridge and then in the direction of Lindisfarne. There followed a course of driving along East Derwent Highway, other streets in Lindisfarne, then in Warrane and then back in Lindisfarne before the defendant crashed into the rear of a vehicle that was parked in the driveway of a house in Cedar Street in Lindisfarne. Police found the defendant hiding in the garage of the house. There are 28 particulars of the dangerous driving. Prominently, the defendant’s conduct included the following:
1 The defendant drove at high speed along East Derwent Highway.
2 He drove through a red traffic light at the intersection of East Derwent Highway and Ronni Street.
3 He cut across in front of traffic travelling in the same direction and turned right into Lincoln Road when the right turn arrow was red.
4 When driving from Mulunna Road onto the East Derwent Highway again, he crossed double white lines.
5 At the traffic light controlled intersection of East Derwent Highway and Derwent Avenue, he did a U turn and drove along East Derwent Highway on the wrong side of the road for about 20 metres before moving to the left hand side.
6 When continuing along East Derwent Highway, he drove between two vehicles travelling in the same direction, nearly colliding with both, before turning right onto Lincoln Street in the face of oncoming traffic.
7 About five minutes later, the defendant was again seen at the intersection of Derwent Avenue and Derwent Highway, where he drove into the slip lane in the wrong direction, across to the right side of the road before turning left off the Highway without indicating.
8 Travelling at speed, he drove over the roundabout onto Begonia Street and left into Flagstaff Gully Road where he travelled at a high speed causing the vehicle to leave the road surface as it went over speed bumps.
9 After driving to Cambridge Road, he overtook a taxi on the incorrect side of the road, and, turning into Zeehan Street without indication, lost control of the vehicle.
10 When turning left into Bass and Cumberland Streets successively, he drove at an excessive speed, turned without indication and lost traction as he was turning the corners.
11 Having sped along Heemskirk Street, he made a right turn onto Zeehan Street and then onto Cambridge Road, failing to give way to vehicles on Cambridge Road.
12 When seen driving along Bligh Street, he was driving at excessive speed and accelerated away, crossing a continuous white line in the centre of the road to overtake vehicles travelling in the same direction, causing drivers of vehicles coming in the opposite direction to stop to avoid a collision.
13 He turned left onto Alma Street against a red light, crossing onto the incorrect side of the road through the intersection, causing drivers of vehicles to take action to avoid a collision.
14 Having driven over a set of road spikes deployed by the police on Gordons Hill Road, Lindisfarne, he overtook three vehicles on the right hand side of the road as he approached a left hand bend, travelling at 80 km/h despite both front tyres having been spiked.
When police officers found the defendant in the garage, they searched a backpack in his possession. In the bag was a snap lock bag containing cannabis, a snap lock bag containing three mirtazapine tablets, one codeine tablet and one tolterodine tablet. An oral fluid test proved positive for amphetamine. When interviewed, the defendant told police that he was avoiding them due to some outstanding warrants, the car he was driving was one he purchased with a friend who was the person with him, although he refused to give that person’s name. He said that the bag was his.
The defendant is now 22 years old. He has a recorded history of offending starting in November 2013 as a youth. He has a conviction for dangerous driving going back to 2013. It appears that he was originally dealt with for that offence but resentenced on 27 October 2014 following further offending. Also prominent in his record is a conviction in April 2014 for aggravated armed robbery committed in December 2012, for which a judge of this Court sentenced him to two years’ detention backdated to April 2013. He was made the subject of a probation order for a period of two years to commence on his release. Since being dealt with for those two offences the defendant has continued to offend mainly in the form of dishonesty, and traffic offences. Also of some relevance are a number of breaches of an interim restraint order for which he was dealt with on 23 January 2019 and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. All in all, there are seven convictions for motor vehicle stealing, three for attempted motor vehicle stealing, five for driving while not the holder of a driver’s licence and one for evading police. The last offence looks like it is associated with the earlier dangerous driving matter. I am told that the defendant had a highly unstable and disrupted childhood. He was neglected and witnessed violence by his father towards his mother. His father was in and out of gaol. He lived with his mother until he was 14 and then went to live with his grandmother who provided some stability, but by that time the defendant had started using drugs. This involved cannabis at the age of 12. Entrenched polysubstance abuse followed. He has been using methamphetamine since he was 18. His education suffered and he only completed grade 7. He has been in and out of youth detention and prison since 2013. Counsel for the defendant accepted that there was not much that could be said in relation to the current matters. The defendant was aware there were warrants out for his arrest and quickly decided to drive away to avoid apprehension. He accepts he has made things much worse for himself. He does not try to excuse any of his conduct, and I am told he accepts full responsibility for it. In this respect, I note that he pleaded guilty to the dangerous driving on his very first appearance in the Magistrates Court. He was committed to this Court on that crime with all the other matters being adjourned sine die. Counsel submitted that there is a direct correlation between all offending and the defendant’s drug use. The dishonesty offending is motivated by obtaining funds for drugs, and that drug use contributed to the present offending.
I was persuaded to obtain a drug treatment order assessment report. That report, dated 9 October 2019, confirms the defendant’s dysfunctional upbringing. It sets out his offending history and substance abuse history. The report expresses reservations about the appropriateness of a drug treatment order. Among the main concerns are that the defendant presented at interview as having a strong pro-criminal attitude, and expressed little insight in relation to his offending behaviour. Further, he did not declare significant drug use in the community when he engaged in an intake assessment at the prison, and he did not present as withdrawing at that time. The report notes that the defendant presented as being in the pre-contemplative stage of change, and his motivation appeared to stem from his desire to be released from prison, as opposed to accessing treatment. Further still, the proposed address for him is that of his cousin, but the Court Mandated Diversion team were not able to make contact with the cousin, and that person is facing a charge of possession of a controlled drug. I note that the defendant told the CMD officer the reason he evaded police was that he had drugs in his possession and was under the influence of drugs, not that it was due to there being outstanding warrants for his arrest. I accept that he was under the influence of amphetamine, and am prepared to accept that on the balance of probabilities, illicit drug use contributed to the commission of the driving offences. However, I do not think it appropriate to make a drug treatment order. Primarily I have come to the view that the sentence appropriate to these offences is one in excess of two years’ imprisonment. I also take into account the other matters of concern raised by the CMD team. In assessing the appropriate term of imprisonment, I take into account the very early pleas of guilty which give rise to a moderation of penalty. The defendant’s age remains of some relevance although his history of offending and the seriousness of the present offending mean that his rehabilitation does not have the prominence that it might otherwise have. General deterrence and specific deterrence are very weighty factors in this case. There is also an element of public protection present. Having said that, I do not lose sight of the fact of his age and the fact that he has spent about three years in custody within the last six.
Mr Jetson, I have set out some of the relevant considerations. This is a most serious example of dangerous driving. First, you should not have been driving at all. You are not licensed to do so. As to the driving, you persisted in driving over quite a considerable distance. There were multiple instances of actual danger and high risk. The risk of serious consequences to other road users was very high, although fortunately they did not materialise. Having first evaded police by driving away from them, your subsequent driving was deliberately done to avoid being caught. That shows a high disregard for authority, and that motivation adds a factor of desperation to the driving, and hence increases the potential danger. You had also used amphetamine, further adding to the dangers posed. Generally, you seem to have no respect for authority, and no regard for the rights and interests of other people. You have been given opportunities and incentives to reform, but you have not responded. On the evading police charge you are convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment to commence on 20 June 2019. On the dangerous driving and all remaining matters you are convicted and sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment cumulative to the first term. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of each of those terms. You are disqualified from driving for a period of three years to commence from the date of your release from prison.