STATE OF TASMANIA v MARCUS DENIS MAYNE 2 SEPTEMBER 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Marcus Mayne was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery. Because the only issue at trial was the identity of the robber, the facts follow from the verdict. At about 1.50 pm on Friday 22 September 2017 the defendant walked into the ANZ Bank on Invermay Road at Mowbray. He was wearing a dark top and track pants, with a beanie on his head and gloves on his hands. He carried a supermarket bag containing a large kitchen knife and another object. A female customer was standing at the counter being served by a female teller. The defendant walked up to the customer from behind and produced the knife from the bag. He said, so both could hear, “this is a hold up” and said that he had a weapon. He reached around the customer, put the bag on the counter and said to the teller, “I want the money or she gets it”. As he did so he held the knife to the customer’s side. He also said to the customer that he wanted her money. The teller put $2,000 in the bag. The defendant then picked up the $245 in cash that the customer had brought to deposit and put that in the bag as well. He then turned and walked out of the bank.
At the time another bank officer, a female senior banking officer, was also present and heard and saw what was happening. Other customers were coming into and out of the bank just before and just after the robbery but none were present at the critical time. The defendant was quickly recognised from CCTV and arrested and interviewed the following day. He denied his involvement in the crime.
The impact of the crime is relevant to sentence. As so often happens in crimes like this, both the teller and the customer have suffered, and continue to suffer, profound psychological effects from the robbery. The teller has been unable to resume work. Although other factors are, in her case, also at play, Mr Mayne did not know the physical and emotional make-up of his victims. Although he could not know what effect the crime might have, he, especially as a repeat offender, must have known that the use of a knife in such a direct and immediate way was likely to be terrifying, and carry a high risk that the person he threatened would be greatly traumatised. The other bank officer present has also been affected, although not to the same extent.
The defendant is now 31. He is to be pitied for his upbringing which was highly dysfunctional and is characterised by neglect, abuse and exposure to drugs. He has never had a relationship with his father. It seems that he came to the attention of the child protection authorities from his birth, and, as a child was even housed at Ashley because no foster home could be found at the time. He became addicted to drugs at an early age. His criminal record is shocking and highly relevant. He started offending when he was 14 and has continued until the present, interrupted only by detention or imprisonment. He was first sentenced to actual detention when he was 15. Since then, much of his life has been spent in either detention or prison. His record includes, on my count, about 100 convictions for dishonesty, ten for assault and five for escape. On 20 November 2002, when he was 15, he committed an attempted armed robbery. On 30 November 2003, when he was 16, he committed an aggravated armed robbery. Both crimes resulted in lengthy periods of detention. On 19 August 2008 he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and nine months, with eligibility for parole after 22 months, for an armed robbery committed on 14 January 2008 when the defendant was 20. The sentencing judge described it as a bad case of armed robbery. The defendant robbed a newsagency in central Launceston when the female proprietor and two female staff were present. He grabbed the proprietor’s hair, demanded money, held a knife to her throat, marched her to the till and made off with more than $5,000. Even then, more than ten years ago, the sentencing judge saw little prospect of the defendant’s rehabilitation and a need to protect the public from him, but reduced the sentence and allowed for parole on account of the defendant’s youth. The sentence did not deter him. He was imprisoned again for assault, and then, on 1 June 2012 he robbed a bank in Launceston. After waiting in a nearby car park for the bank to open, he entered the bank wearing sunglasses and a beanie and carrying a backpack. On a deposit slip he wrote words indicating that he wanted $50,000 or else he would get a gun out of his backpack. He gave the note to a teller, held his backpack in front of her and told her it was not a joke and that he had a gun in the backpack and would shoot her, although there was no evidence he had a gun. The bank officer he approached was badly affected. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months, with eligibility for parole after two years and six months. Both of the sentences to which I have referred were imposed after the defendant pleaded guilty. Following his release, which was likely in about early 2015, he was imprisoned again for 15 months for crimes committed on 28 September 2015 including escape, aggravated burglary, stealing and common assault. The armed robbery for which he is now to be sentenced, was on 22 September 2017, not long after his release.
The defendant is no longer entitled to the mitigation of youth. Nor is he entitled to the mitigation of a plea of guilty. It is somewhat in his favour that, no doubt on the advice and initiative of his counsel, the trial was conducted so as to minimise the impact on the witnesses. It was not necessary for the teller to give evidence, and the customer’s evidence was brief and undisputed. In my view, the evidence against the defendant was very strong. He has demonstrated no remorse. The only other factor in his favour is that, while in prison, he has continued to engage in programs directed at treatment of his substance abuse and management of his behaviour, with some positive results. I take into account all of the contents of the psychiatric report of Dr Kalnins dated 11 July 2019. Mr Mayne has no mental illness. The report describes his longstanding illicit substance abuse. He has developed a significant anti-social personality disorder, although it is not suggested this his culpability for this crime is reduced. History demonstrates to me that there is little point in a sentence aimed at his rehabilitation and there remains a very high risk that he will re-offend on his release. The primary aims of sentence must now be punishment, strong condemnation of crimes of this nature and protection of the public. The defendant has been in custody since his arrest on 23 September 2017. Some of that period of custody is attributable to a sentence of imprisonment for six months imposed by a magistrate when Mr Mayne assaulted a police officer when he was arrested. That sentence is relevant to totality but it involves quite different criminality and I give it little weight. He was granted remission and was eligible for release on 22 January 2018, so the sentence I impose will commence then. Given his record and limited prospect of rehabilitation a much longer non-parole period than the minimum is required.
Marcus Mayne, you are convicted. I make a compensation order in favour of ANZ Banking Group Ltd in the sum of $2,245. You are sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years from 22 January 2018. I order that you are not eligible for parole until you have served 5½ years of that sentence.