STATE OF TASMANIA v TROY ANTON LOVELL 4 OCTOBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Troy Lovell, on 7 June 2018 you were sentenced by me to imprisonment for eight months, wholly suspended for two years. There were conditions of that order that, during the period the order was in force, that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment and that you perform 140 hours of community service. You accept that you have breached both of those conditions. You have subsequently committed offences punishable by imprisonment. In addition, you have completed only 14.5 hours of the community service. The State applies for an order activating the suspended term.
The suspended sentence was imposed for robbery. These reasons should be read together with the comments I made when imposing that sentence. In short summary, on 18 December 2016 you opportunistically approached a 68 year old woman walking through a hotel car park, pushed her and snatched her purse. It was not a serious example of robbery but was committed in public and involved a confronting invasion of the victim’s personal and property rights, and was highly disturbing for her. I took a lenient approach but you have not taken advantage of the opportunity offered to you. Your attitude to the performance of the community service has been terrible. For more than a year you have ignored repeated and numerous reminders and warnings and completed very little of it.
On 10 May 2019 you were sentenced by a magistrate to imprisonment for 150 days from 19 March 2019, 98 days of which were suspended, and a community correction order, for common assault, breach of a police family violence order and breach of bail. On 3 August 2018 you assaulted your partner. The assault was by threat rather than application of force. On 28 September 2018 you breached a police family violence order. Then on 14 December 2018 you breached bail by failing to appear in the Magistrates’ Court. Because each of those offences are punishable by imprisonment, they breach a condition of the suspended sentence, and I must activate the suspended sentence unless I am satisfied that it is unjust.
Through your counsel you do not submit that some of the suspended term should not be activated, but contend that it would be unjust to activate all of it. Your partner has just given birth to your fifth child. The breach offences arose from tension in the relationship. The family violence order resulted in your isolation from your children. You fell into despair. That also affected your response to the community service but it does not explain the extent of your non-compliance. The common assault is not as serious as the robbery. However, activation of the sentence, when all of the circumstances are taken into account, is not a disproportionate response. The offences were all committed within six months of imposition of the suspended sentence. The only real thing in your favour is that, since the family violence order expired, you have got back with your family, your mental state has improved and, about a month ago, you obtained the first job you have held for many years. That is the first indication of rehabilitation or reform. Balancing all of those considerations I have concluded that failure to activate most of the sentence in this case would undermine the integrity of the system of suspended sentences and bring the law into disrepute, but that it would be unjust to not make a small reduction in the hope that it will maximise the prospect that you can return to your job on your release.
I am satisfied that you have been found guilty of new offences punishable by imprisonment and you have breached, without reasonable excuse, the condition of the suspended sentence requiring performance of community service. I order that a sentence of imprisonment for six months take effect in place of the eight month suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed on 7 June 2018 and I order that you serve that substituted sentence from today.