STATE OF TASMANIA v JONATHON MAXWELL NEWALL
17 SEPTEMBER 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Newall, you have pleaded guilty to one count of stealing and one count of Criminal Code assault by deprivation of liberty. On Friday, 8 March 2024 members of Tasmania Police gathered in Ulverstone, intending to locate and arrest you for alleged offending. Around midday, they received information that you and your partner had been seen near the Leven Bridge. Two police officers, Acting Sergeant Hickman and Senior Constable O’Toole, travelled to the Leven Bridge area. They stopped their marked police car opposite to where you were standing. Senior Constable O’Toole called out to you. You responded by running away from the police. Acting Sergeant Hickman gave chase. You ran under the Leven Bridge and into a nearby park area. At this point, police lost sight of you. At the same time, Ms Gaylene Bartels, who was aged 61, was at home at her residence. Her residence was adjacent to the park you had run into. She was inside her home when she noticed that the door of her garden shed was open. She went outside to investigate and found you in the shed. She did not know you. She asked you what you were doing. You apologised to her, told her you were not going to hurt her and then told her there were men out of the front, in a black four-wheel drive, trying to harm you.
Understandably, Ms Bartels was frightened and concerned. She pretended to call out to her husband, although she was, in fact, alone at the unit. She told you she would go out into the street to see if the men were still there. She did so. There was no black four-wheel drive. When she returned to the shed, you had gone. She subsequently called triple zero. When she re-entered her residence, she realised you had taken her wallet from her handbag, which was in the dining room, and contained an assortment of personal cards and $65 in cash.
After leaving Ms Bartels, you made your way to another adjoining property. This property was occupied by Ms Shirley Parker, who was aged 92. She lived alone in her unit. She had lived in the unit for the previous 26 years. Ms Parker was capable of walking but was largely reliant on a walker and walking stick to aid her mobility.
Ms Parker noticed a number of police officers outside in the street. She did not know why they were there but thought it best to look around her unit. She walked into her bedroom and found you standing by her wardrobe. Ms Parker did not know you. You claim that you had previously done some work for her at her unit many years earlier, but you accept that any interaction between the two of you would have been fleeting and it is most unlikely that Ms Parker would recognise you. There is no suggestion that you knew each other in any meaningful way.
As Ms Parker entered the bedroom you moved towards her. She believed you may have touched her. You deny this. It matters not. Your criminal conduct involved depriving Ms Parker of her liberty. The substance of your criminality stems from invading her home, violating her privacy and sense of safety and limiting her ability to move freely around her home as she desired. You left the bedroom and went to the back door of the unit and locked it. Ms Parker entered the kitchen area. There was a window that was open. She yelled for help. She then returned to the living area. You were in the living area. You went to the front door, presumably to check it. It was already locked. You closed all the curtains in the living room. You were saying to Ms Parker, “Don’t let them get me”.
At some point, police became aware that you were inside Ms Parker’s residence. Three police officers congregated at the front door of her unit and four police officers entered the backyard area. When Ms Parker saw the officers in the backyard, she again called out to them for help and told them where the spare key to the back door was located.
Police called out to you to open the door. You did not do so. They told you to show your hands and threatened to deploy OC spray. Again, you were non-compliant. As you were standing near the back door, Ms Parker decided to move to the front door and attempt to unlock it and leave. As she was standing adjacent to the front door, police forced entry into the unit, via the front door. In doing so, glass panes in the front door were smashed and glass shards struck Ms Parker, cutting both of her forearms. She was on blood thinning medication at the time and both of her arms bled freely.
Police entered the unit and detained you. You claimed you had done nothing wrong and said that you knew Ms Parker and had been looking after her. This was not true. Police found Ms Bartels’ wallet in Ms Parker’s unit. It was returned to Ms Bartels without any of its contents having been taken. Ms Parker was taken to the Northwest Regional Hospital, where the cuts on her forearms were dressed.
In my view, this is very serious conduct. Whilst it is likely that you were only inside the unit with Ms Parker for about five minutes, the whole experience must have been terrifying for her. She was elderly and vulnerable. You deprived her of her liberty by restricting her free movement within the unit and by locking the doors and pulling the blinds. Whilst you did not physically threaten or harm her, you caused her great fear and concern. It is sometimes easy to overlook the impact an assault of this nature can have upon an individual when there is no physical harm occasioned. The invasion of her privacy and her sense of security was a gross violation of her rights and caused her emotional anguish. I also do not overlook the fact she was injured when police were required to force entry to the unit, which was a direct consequence of your criminal conduct. As noted, the whole experience must have been simply terrifying for Ms Parker. She did not know you. She did not know why you were there. She did not know what you intended. She observed you be non-compliant with police. She must have been concerned as to what may occur. She was frail and vulnerable and entirely unable to protect herself. She was entitled to feel safe and protected within her own home. Yet, you violated that without any regard for her well-being to achieve your own selfish purpose of endeavouring to avoid arrest by police.
Sadly, since this crime, Ms Parker has passed away. I have received a victim impact statement from her daughter. It describes the level of upset Ms Parker experienced when she had to speak with police about this incident. It also notes Ms Parker became quite hyper vigilant and anxious in the weeks following the incident. Three or four weeks after the incident, Ms Parker was admitted into palliative care. Therefore, the last few weeks she was able to spend in her long-term home was marred by the thought of what you had done to her, and feelings of anxiousness and uncertainty rather than it being a period of happy reflection.
You are 42 years of age. You have an appalling history of prior criminal offending. You have 35 convictions for burglary, 90 convictions for stealing, 50 convictions for bail related offending, convictions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and convictions for driving offences, including evading police on two occasions. In 2004, you were convicted and sentenced by this Court for the crime of aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated armed robbery. In November 2024, you were sentenced to five months’ imprisonment by the Magistrates Court for various driving offences, dishonesty offences, offences contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act, bail offences and two counts of trespass. The two counts of trespass related to you entering premises at Ulverstone. Both of these offences occurred after the incident for which I am sentencing you.
Clearly, you have little regard for the law. Much of your criminal offending is reflective of your long-term drug addiction. I am told you have been a heavy drug user since your teenage years. There have been periods where you have been able to abstain, but it seems rarely for extended periods. You have twice been sentenced to the Court Mandated Drug Diversion Programme, but you have not been successful on either occasion.
In July 2024, whilst you were on bail for this offending, you attended at Serenity House, a drug rehabilitation facility, as an in-patient for a period of about six weeks. You had a bail condition requiring you to attend at the Bridge Rehabilitation Centre following your release from Serenity House. You did not attend there but rather, following your departure from Serenity House, you resumed your use of drugs. This is typical of your efforts over the past couple of decades to address your long-standing drug addiction. You are prepared to do some work but have never demonstrated the level of commitment necessary to really address what is, a chronic addiction.
There is little that can be said in mitigation. You are entitled to some credit for your plea of guilty. It has saved the need for a trial. I accept that you had no intent to cause either Ms Bartels or Ms Parker any harm, but your behaviour was very frightening for both of them. As I have commented, Ms Parker, in particular, must have felt terrified by your behaviour. Your counsel submits that you remain hopeful of addressing your drug addiction in the long term and intend on achieving this by obtaining employment. Quite frankly, I think it is reasonable to have a high level of scepticism as to whether you will, in fact, commit to the work that will be necessary for you to address your drug addiction in any meaningful way. I do not consider rehabilitation to be a weighty sentencing consideration. Rather, given the seriousness of this offending, general deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing considerations. Whilst it is trite to note you are not to be re-sentenced for your history of prior offending, it is obvious given it, that specific deterrence and community protection are also important factors. In my view, a substantial period of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentencing response.
Jonathon Newall, you are convicted of the charges to which you have pleaded guilty. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 16 months, commencing on 31 March 2025. I order that you are not eligible for parole until you have served ten months of that period of imprisonment.