STATE OF TASMANIA v ADAM JOHN LIPSCOMBE 8 FEBRUARY 2022
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Adam John Lipscombe you have pleaded guilty to one count of making a false threat of danger, and one count of delaying admission to the warrant premises, contrary to s 21(1) of the Search Warrants Act 1997. I will deal with the latter matter pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code.
On 12 January 2021, the defendant telephoned the Friends’ School on three separate occasions and made threats. It seems his conduct was motivated by his reaction to a newspaper report published on 6 January 2021. That newspaper report was titled “No charges for schoolboys at centre of wallaby torture and kill claim while camping”. The article stated, amongst other things, that four students from the Friends’ School had trapped a wallaby in water until it drowned, then retrieved the carcass and smashed its head on rocks. The article also stated that the Friends’ School had “notified Tasmania police and dealt with the boys internally by engaging a juvenile offending restorative justice provider”. Apparently the defendant perceived that the students had been dealt with most leniently and this angered him.
At approximately 12.26pm on 12 January 2021, Ms Campbell was working in the reception area of the Friends’ School and answered a telephone call. The defendant stated, “we have 10 kilos of wallaby guts to drop off and wondered if you can ask the boys if they can deal with it”. The defendant also stated, “15 people will visit students on the first day of school and attack them”. I should note that in respect to this second statement, the defendant does not deny saying there would be a visit and the students would be attacked, but claims he made reference to a 15 year old visiting the students on the first day of school and attacking them, not 15 people. I will sentence on that basis. Whatever the terminology, the import of what was said by the defendant was that, on the first day of school, the students would be attacked. His threat was a cause for concern.
When Ms Campbell offered to obtain the Director of the school to speak with the defendant, the defendant said, “There’s no use it won’t fucking go anywhere anyway. It’s so disgusting and they’ll get what’s coming to them.” The defendant then ended the call. A second call was made to the school by the defendant approximately one minute later. Again, Ms Campbell answered the call. The defendant told Ms Campbell, “there will be a bomb if the boys are not expelled”.
The defendant made a third phone call, again approximately one minute later. This time Ms Campbell heard the defendant say, “tick, tick, tick”. She also heard a second person in the background talking about “not crossing the wires”. Understandably, Ms Campbell believed that what she heard was a reference to making a bomb, which would be delivered to the school, given the threat said during the second phone call. Ms Campbell alerted the Director of the school. The bomb threat procedure was acted upon, which involved contacting police and advising all staff at the school of the threats that had been made.
Tasmania Police attended the Friends’ School, obtained call charge records, and readily identified the defendant’s telephone number as being the source of the phone calls. On 14 January 2021, Tasmania Police attended the defendant’s residence in possession of a search warrant. They knocked and identified themselves. The defendant refused to open the door and then ran from the living room area of the house to a bedroom. Police subsequently forced entry into the premises and located the defendant in a bed in one of the bedrooms. This is the basis of the charge contrary to the Search Warrants Act.
When interviewed by police, the defendant said he could not remember if he called the Friends’ School and did not have any reason to contact the Friends’ School. He also said he did not open the door because he “had dealt with that much in the last year that he did not want to see police”.
A subsequent forensic investigation of a mobile phone located in the same bed the defendant was found in, disclosed an internet search had been made for the Friends’ School contact details. It also revealed a saved screen shot that depicted the newspaper article of 6 January 2021 and some Facebook messages sent between the defendant and other persons referencing the wallaby incident and the Friends’ School.
The defendant participated in a second record of interview on 29 March 2021. In that interview he again said he could not recall if he had placed any phone calls to the Friends’ School and made threats. He said he had read the newspaper article and was “aware of things”. He said he had no thoughts on it at all. He said he recalled the community was upset as to how the situation had been handled, and that if it was his son or daughter who had been involved, “he would be disgusted”. He agreed he was found in possession of a mobile phone which had been used to call the Friends’ School. He said “obviously I have done something that I am not aware of or remember but I am happy to be here to answer to my actions and be responsible for them”. He further said he “was going to have to take responsibility for making the call because no one else was going to”.
The defendant is now aged 38. He has a strong industrial history. He worked for a substantial period of time in aged care services. He was well regarded in that field. Following his conviction for offences contrary to the Firearms Act in March of 2021, he lost his working with vulnerable persons accreditation and lost his employment. He has since found work as a scaffolder. The defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage, before he had the benefit of representation from counsel. He says he is very remorseful for his behaviour. This is consistent with his early plea of guilty. The defendant, through his Counsel, claims he did not intend to cause anyone any harm, and that in effect, his comments were “empty threats”. He says he simply did not contemplate that his actions may cause anyone mental anguish. I am told, that after reading the newspaper article, and discussing it with others, including the 15 year old, he referred to in the first phone call, the defendant became infuriated because he believed there was “one rule for the rich and another for the poor”. He was of the opinion that the manner in which the students at the Friends’ School had been dealt with was most unjust and I am told it invoked a strong emotive reaction within him. In response to this, he made the threatening phone calls. He now acknowledges his behaviour was most foolish. By way of relevant prior criminal history, the defendant has a conviction for disorderly conduct in 2004. He has several prior convictions for breaching an interim family violence order. The particulars of one of those breaching offences included making a threat by leaving a voice recording saying, “if youse don’t comply, Dave aint walking no more because he’s getting one blown through his legs”. The defendant also has several prior convictions for breaching a restraint order. He has prior convictions for offences contrary to the Firearms Act, including possession of stolen firearms and possession of a shortened firearm. There is no suggestion a firearm was involved in the threats here. The defendant’s prior criminal history demonstrates, in my view, a general disrespect for the law and authority.
It is noteworthy that no students were at the school on the day the defendant made the phone calls. It does not appear as though any evacuation of the school was necessary. Nevertheless the school activated its bomb threat procedure and all staff were advised of the threats made. Behaviour of this nature has the capacity to instil fear and confusion into those to whom the threats are directed, and the community generally if they become aware of it. Moreover these types of behaviour divert valuable police resources and cause disruption, inconvenience and stress. The persons who receive such threats have no way of knowing the degree of seriousness associated with them. I have had the benefit of reading an impact statement from Ms Campbell, who received the three phone calls. She describes finding the situation confronting and distressing, and feeling apprehensive and uncertain. Because of the impact the defendant’s behaviour had on others, his actions should not be trivialised but recognised as constituting a serious crime. The defendant’s behaviour was completely unacceptable. This was not an impulsive, momentary incident; rather three phone calls were made, each call reinforcing the threat. General deterrence, and denunciation are important sentencing considerations.
I have obtained a report from Community Corrections in respect to the defendant. I have regard to the report generally and note in particular no mental health issues were identified. The defendant reported that at the time of the offending he was consuming alcohol heavily. He has now reduced his alcohol consumption considerably. The defendant was made subject to a Community Correction Order for 18 months on 25 March 2021 and to date he has engaged well in that order. A further Community correction order is not recommended. The defendant is suitable for a community service order.
In respect to the summary matter, it was a relatively brief and ineffective effort to delay police entering. On that matter, I convict the defendant but I make no further order. However, given the seriousness of the false threat of danger, and the strong need to deter others who may be minded to act similarly, I am of the view that a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed. I will however suspend that period of imprisonment and order community service.
Adam John Limpscombe, you are convicted. You are sentenced to imprisonment for two months. I suspend the execution of that period of imprisonment for 12 months on condition that, during that time, you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment. I also make a community correction order to operate for a period of 2 years with a condition requiring you, during that period, to satisfactorily perform and complete 84 hours of community service, as directed by your probation officer or community correction supervisor.
Mr Lipscombe you should understand that if during the 12 month period, you commit an offence punishable by imprisonment it is highly likely that you will be required to serve the term of imprisonment I have just imposed. The law is that a judge must activate that sentence unless it is unjust to do so.