STATE OF TASMANIA v PETER DAVID LEAMAN 28 OCTOBER 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Mr Leaman, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to two counts on an indictment; stealing a firearm and robbery. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to 15 summary matters being 3 counts of aggravated burglary, 5 of burglary, 6 of stealing and 1 of receiving stolen property. These charges are related to a course of conduct in and around the New Norfolk area, the first in early March 2019, and then between 9 October 2019 and 20 November 2019. There are eight separate incidents. On 5 March 2019, the defendant forced entry to a shed in the backyard of a home. He went in and took an outboard motor. That motor was valued at $1,000 and has not been recovered. On 9 October 2019, the defendant broke into a dwelling house by smashing the rear bedroom window. He also went into a shed. The property was unoccupied as it was being renovated. The defendant stole a large amount of property including builder’s tools, chainsaws and other similar items, most of which belonged to the builder. Total value of the property stolen is approximately $8,820 and none of it has been recovered. On 18 October 2019, an outboard motor was stolen from a property in New Norfolk. It was worth approximately $1,400. About three days later, police received information that the motor could be located in a bin at an address near that of the defendant, and the item was recovered. When later interviewed about this, the defendant said that the motor had been taken to his house by two men, that he looked at it and picked it up. He admitted to knowing it was stolen, but he said that he did not want it but that his partner kept it to sell at a later time. On 4 November 2019 at around 7.30am the defendant went into the yard of a residence and broke into a shed at the rear of the property. He took a tool bag containing a number of tools valued at about $530. On 7 November at about 10am the defendant went into a shed at the rear of another property. While inside he used a tyre iron to force open a firearm safe. The defendant stole four firearms being one air rifle, two .22 calibre rifles and one .308 calibre rifle. The total value of the firearms was $3,200. He also took a chainsaw valued at about $400. The theft of the firearms constitutes count 1 on the indictment. In later interviews the defendant first denied any knowledge of the matter, stating that neither his fingerprints nor his DNA would be present. A bit over a month later, as to this matter he admitted standing in a nearby carpark acting as a lookout for three men who he named. He said he did not go into the property but believes he gave the offenders tools to commit the crime. He admitted helping to carry the chainsaw to a place where all items, including the firearms, were put into the boot of a car belonging to another person. He said he very briefly carried one of the firearms. The air rifle has been recovered but none of the other firearms or the chainsaw has been. He said he received “smokes and a lot of dope” for doing what he did, but no cash. The Crown is not able to assert any greater degree of involvement than that admitted to. On 15 November, the defendant broke into a garage at the rear of another property. From that he stole a significant amount of property including 4 chainsaws, some power tools, spotlights and a hand trolley. The total approximate value is $9,439. Only the trolley and one of the lights have been recovered; they were found in a paddock a short distance from the defendant’s home. At this particular address, the defendant also entered a motor vehicle and apparently searched it, but nothing was taken. I turn to count 2 on the indictment, that of robbery. On 20 November at about 4.30am, the defendant went into the backyard of a residence occupied by a 79 year old woman, Mrs Eiszele. She lived there alone after her husband died about 8 years before. She was in fact up at the time, heard noises and went outside to a shed connected to a house. The defendant had forced entry to the shed which contained a firearm safe. He had forced entry to the safe by using a screw-driver. When Mrs Eiszele went into the shed she found the defendant standing at the gun safe. He said something to her, then reached into the safe and took out a gun. She tried to stop him but he pushed her away. He then grabbed another firearm. Mrs Eiszele was still trying to impede the defendant as he was leaving, but was unable to stop him. The defendant stole four firearms, being two 12 gauge shotguns, a .22 calibre rifle and a 303 bolt-action rifle. The total value was $4,500 and none of these firearms have been recovered. When later interviewed about this crime, he denied being responsible in any way. Mrs Eiszele was fortunately not physically injured, however, in a victim impact statement dated 30 September 2020 she describes her anxiety at the time and her constant reliving of the event afterwards, feeling like she had acted quite impulsively and stupidly. She became quite terrified at night time and could not sleep. Ultimately she sought medical assistance, was diagnosed with PTSD and put on antidepressant medications. She had the house on the market but after this event, accepted a very low offer in order to be able to move as quickly as possible. She accepted some $100,000 less than the lower end of the range she had hoped for.
On the same day, that is, 20 November 2019, the defendant went into yet another home, gaining entry by forcing open a rear window. He stole a chainsaw, tools and electrical equipment including a CCTV system. The total approximate value was $4,800. On 25 November 2019, the defendant was interviewed, he was charged with the receiving matter and admitted to bail. He was interviewed on 25 November about some of these other matters, and then again on 1 January 2020. On 15 January 2020 he was arrested but refused to be interviewed. Overall, the defendant made few admissions and was largely unco-operative. In respect of all incidents, except that on 15 November, analysis of forensic swabs taken at the scene or of relevant items revealed a match to the defendant. A fingerprint found at the remaining scene was a match to him. I note that in excess of $30,000 worth of property was stolen in total with almost none of it recovered. Of the eight firearms, only the one I mentioned has been recovered. The defendant has been in custody in relation to these matters on and off from 15 January, having had bail for periods and been sentenced to short periods of imprisonment on three occasions since then. I will make allowance for the relevant period.
The defendant is now 36 years old and has an extensive recorded history of offending. The record consists of mostly of offences of dishonesty. He has been the subject of almost the entire arsenal of sentencing options including two drug treatment orders. It follows that he has served several terms of imprisonment. As to his personal circumstances, his parents separated when he was very young and he suffered, and/or was exposed to, violence perpetrated by his alcoholic father. He was educated to year 10 level but has a limited employment history. He spend some time fruit picking and then was engaged in the plastering industry for a few years, something for which he has qualifications. Otherwise he has been mostly engaged in wood carting with his father with whom he is reconciled. He developed a drug problem when he was about 17. The extent of the problem has fluctuated over time. In 2003 he was sentenced to imprisonment for arson, and after being released on parole began associating with established drug users. He developed an addiction to morphine in his early 20s with methamphetamine use later becoming established. That has been a problem for about the last 10 years. Subuxone programs have been disrupted by imprisonment and drug treatment orders have been to no real avail. His physical health is impaired. He was riding a bicycle when involved in a collision with a vehicle. He suffered a number of injuries and was in an induced coma for about two weeks. He had titanium rods inserted his leg. He has had difficulty sleeping since, and generally dealing with the consequences. He has a number of children including a 3 year old and stepdaughter with whom he maintains contact, that being by phone during his time in custody. I take these personal circumstances into account. As to the present offending, when on parole in 2018, he had some success in reducing drug use but in about October 2019 relapsed. His Ice use was heavy. He was involved with a group of criminal associates. I was told that generally he has a poor memory of events. I take into account his pleas of guilty. I also take into account, as submitted, that the utilitarian value of the pleas is of significance given the circumstantial nature of the cases against him. The plea to the robbery charge spared Mrs Eiszele from having to give evidence. At the same time, the pleas were not entered at the earliest opportunity and forensic investigations and reports were required by the defendant before he pleaded. Since being in custody he has sought some assistance in relation to what he perceives to be mental health issues. He believes his drug use may be linked to his mental health and that is something he wants to explore.
Mr Leaman, this course of conduct has to be viewed in a very serious light. In particular, the theft of firearms, nearly all of which have not been recovered, requires strong condemnation. Unregulated firearms in the community are linked to serious criminal conduct. These types of crimes of dishonesty cause distress to the victims. They show complete and utter disregard for the rights and feelings of others. In the course of one intrusion you committed the crime of robbery. In the pursuit of firearms, you grappled with an elderly lady and pushed her away. She has suffered emotionally and financially as a result. Attempting to deter others from engaging in similar behaviour is important. I take into account your personal circumstances, as I have said. Your drug use, while a possible explanation, does not provide any excuse. Attempting to deter you from offending in the future is also important, and the issue of public protection also arises. You are convicted of all matters. You are sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment to commence on 27 February 2020. You seem to have some insight into where your difficulties might lie and you want to do things to improve the situation. As there are some prospects of your rehabilitation and given the length of the sentence, I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 21 months. I make compensation orders in favour of Peter Baker, Alan Bond, Ian King, Michael Eiszele, Andrew Embrey, Ben Westwood and Michael Browning. Each of those applications will be adjourned to dates to be fixed.