STATE OF TASMANIA v TRENT ROSS PENNICOTT 5 FEBRUARY 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE WOOD J
Trent Ross Pennicott has pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud, one count of forgery, and one count of uttering. The defendant defrauded four individuals in relation to the sale of motor vehicles. Three counts of fraud relate to three complainants, Joshua Fraser, Robert Kingston, and David Dutton, and the balance of the indictment involving three counts of fraud, one of forgery, and one of uttering relate to a fourth complainant, Bradley Host.
Count 1
On 12 February 2021, the complainant Joshua Fraser responded to a Gumtree advertisement posted by the defendant. The defendant advertised a 2015 Nissan Patrol ‘GU’ vehicle for sale for $30,000. The defendant listed it under his first name and provided his own mobile phone number.
The defendant and Mr Fraser spoke over the phone about the potential sale price of the vehicle and delivery. The defendant told Mr Fraser that he had purchased the vehicle for a former employee, there was nothing wrong with it, and he no longer needed it.
After some negotiations, on the morning of 14 February 2021, the defendant and Mr Fraser settled on the price of $27,500. This included a $10,000 deposit to secure the vehicle and a later payment of $17,500. Mr Fraser agreed to pay an additional $500 for the defendant to deliver the vehicle from Hobart to his workplace in Burnie.
On 14 February, Mr Fraser transferred $10,000 into the defendant’s MyState bank account. The following day, he sent a screenshot of the deposit transaction to the defendant and delivery of the vehicle was arranged for the following day.
The defendant met Mr Fraser in Burnie on 16 February 2021. He inspected the vehicle and handed over the balance of $18,000 in payment. The defendant and Mr Fraser filled out the registration transfer papers, and the defendant handed over the keys.
On 18 February, Mr Fraser tried to transfer the registration into his own name at Service Tasmania, however, the defendant had not signed the transfer paperwork. As a result, Mr Fraser needed the defendant’s driver’s licence number to complete the transfer. The defendant sent an image of his driver’s licence photo and number by text message.
Mr Fraser used the vehicle without incident for the following eight months. However, on 12 October 2021, the complainant received communication from an asset recovery agent, Ms Bellchambers. She advised Mr Fraser she would have to repossess the vehicle as the defendant still owed money on it. Mr Fraser tried to contact the defendant numerous times but received no response.
In November 2021, the vehicle was repossessed from Mr Fraser’s property. He and his family were preparing to travel around Australia with the vehicle and had saved $40,000 for the holiday which they then had to cancel. Mr Fraser lost the entirety of the $28,000 he paid for the vehicle. The defendant avoided communication with him.
Subsequent investigations revealed that on 16 March 2020, the defendant had borrowed $40,870.20 from Pepper Finance to purchase the Nissan Patrol. Over the following 18 months, he made $9,660.98 in repayments. At the time the vehicle was repossessed, the defendant owed $34,120.61 on the vehicle.
Count 2
On 13 September 2021, the complainant Robert Kingston responded to a Gumtree advertisement posted by the defendant in relation to the sale of a Toyota Hilux for $22,000.
Mr Kingston communicated with the defendant about the vehicle, and they agreed to meet later that morning at the defendant’s work.
Mr Kingston was shown the vehicle and identified a number of dents and missing parts. He offered the defendant $19,000 for the vehicle. They settled on the price of $20,000, and the defendant delivered the vehicle to Mr Kingston’s home. The two exchanged registration transfer papers and signed the relevant documents. The complainant paid the defendant the agreed price of $20,000 in cash.
Over the next 10 days, the complainant attempted to contact the defendant to request a receipt as he was of the belief that he required one to transfer the vehicle into his own name. Initially, the defendant said he would provide a receipt, however, after 10 days of continual requests from Mr Kingston, he failed to forward a receipt to him. Mr Kingston drew up his own record of the sale of the vehicle and the vehicle was transferred into his name.
On 1 December 2021, Mr Kingston received a letter from the Department of State Growth advising him that there was security interest still owing on the vehicle. He was told that unless he paid out the figure still owing on it, the vehicle would be repossessed until he could sort out the issue with the defendant.
Mr Kingston tried to contact the defendant on numerous occasions and attended his business address only to find it vacant and unoccupied. On 8 January 2022, he rang the defendant and told him about the issue. The defendant told him that the vehicle encumbrance should have been settled in his divorce settlement and he would produce documentation to prove this. The defendant did not produce any documentation and avoided all communication with Mr Kingston.
On around 6 January 2022, Mr Kingston posted on Facebook, naming the defendant and calling out his conduct, with the intention of warning other people about him. Within minutes of the post, the defendant sent a message to Mr Kingston and asked him to take the post down. He said he would meet him the following Tuesday with $20,000 or the necessary paperwork. He provided Mr Kingston with an address that did not exist. He did not meet up with Mr Kingston or respond to him. The vehicle was repossessed on 27 January 2022.
Subsequent investigations revealed that on 10 November 2021, the defendant had borrowed $29,758 from Toyota Finance to purchase the Hilux. Over the following 10-month period, he made $2,910.30 in repayments. At the time the vehicle was repossessed, the defendant still owed $30,052 for the vehicle.
Count 3
On 25 October, the defendant advertised on Gumtree offering to sell a 2015 Toyota Landcruiser for an amount of $75,000. The complainant David Dutton contacted the defendant, offering to pay $72,000, requested more information about its condition, and asked if any finance was still owing on the vehicle. The defendant said he was not aware of any finance owing. He told the complainant that if the complainant paid him $2,000 as a deposit, he would take down the advertisement.
Mr Dutton paid the deposit into the bank account nominated by the defendant. He then discovered that there was finance owing on the vehicle and asked the defendant about it. The defendant denied there was finance owing but said he would look into it. After this conversation, the defendant ceased all contact with Mr Dutton and did not return his $2,000.
Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
On 26 October 2021, the complainant Bradley Host contacted the defendant via Gumtree about the same Landcruiser advertised for sale. He asked the defendant to contact him and provided his number. Shortly after, the defendant contacted Mr Host, and they discussed the sale of the vehicle. They agreed on the price of $70,000 with a deposit of $10,000. During their call, the defendant told Mr Host that there was still finance on the vehicle that he (Mr Host) would need to deal with. Arrangements were made for a friend of Mr Host’s to inspect the vehicle the following day.
The following day, the defendant sent a text message and email to Mr Host with a copy of the finance company payout letter. This was a one-page document, purporting to be from “Volkswagen Financial Services”, which stated that the company held a security interest in the Landcruiser in the amount of $23,731.10 with an expiry date of 31/10/23. Subsequent investigations revealed that the payout amount was in fact $83,731.10 and the expiry date was 22/10/21. The document purported to provide the bank account details of “Volkswagen Financial Services”. The defendant had forged this document, and also committed the crime of uttering when he presented the forged document to Mr Host.
The defendant took the vehicle to Dowsing Point where he met Mr Host’s friend, who inspected the vehicle. The defendant showed the male his licence and provided the service history. Immediately following the inspection, Mr Host paid the $10,000 deposit. He also paid $23,731.10 into the bank account that he believed to belong to “Volkswagen Financial Services” in order to pay out the finance that he believed was still owing on the vehicle. The bank account details in fact belonged to the defendant’s girlfriend.
Mr Host transferred the remaining $36,268.10 into the defendant’s bank account to finalise the sale. The total amount of cash transferred to the defendant and his girlfriend was $69,999.20. Mr Host requested the defendant fill out a receipt that he prepared and emailed to the defendant. The defendant signed and returned it. The receipt stated the vehicle was being sold “free of all debt and encumbrance” once the $23,731.10 had been paid to Volkswagen.
The defendant and Mr Host arranged for the vehicle to be shipped to New South Wales, and this was done on 1 November. Later that same day, Mr Host felt uneasy about the deal and placed a Personal Property Securities Registration (PPSR) on the vehicle.
On Tuesday 2 November, Mr Host received a call from Mr Dutton enquiring about the PPSR as he had placed a $2,000 deposit on the vehicle and believed he was the sole purchaser of it. At this point, the pair realised they had been defrauded.
Subsequent investigations revealed that when the defendant had sold the vehicle to the complainant, he owed $83,731 on it.
On 17 February 2022, the defendant was arrested and conveyed to the Hobart Police Station. He participated in a video interview with police where he stated the following.
In relation to Mr Fraser and the Nissan Patrol and Mr Kingston and the Toyota Hilux, he admitted advertising the vehicles for sale after having the cars for approximately 12 months and that he did not inform the purchasers about the finance owing on them. In relation to Mr Fraser and the Nissan Patrol, he did not know the vehicle had been repossessed but said he would make amends and pay him back. He said he did not recall being contacted by Mr Fraser about the money still owing on the vehicle.
In relation to Mr Dutton and the Landcruiser, he said he sold the vehicle after using it for over two years and he acknowledged receiving a $2,000 deposit but thought he transferred the money back.
In relation to Mr Host and the Landcruiser, he told police he sold the vehicle for $70,000 after using it for two years, that he took a $10,000 deposit, that he sent a finance payout letter to Mr Host to sort out the amount owing, and that he received the remaining amount owing into his account. He admitted he altered the finance letter himself and said he didn’t know why.
At the conclusion of the interview, the defendant was charged and bailed.
I regard the defendant’s criminal responsibility as high. In each case, he sold expensive vehicles which he was well aware were subject to finance and where he owed the finance company a significant percentage of the purchase price. He fraudulently received in three instances a significant amount of money which he knew very well he was not entitled to. In the case of each act of dishonesty, his moral culpability increased as he repeated his conduct of defrauding innocent purchasers. Then, in Mr Host’s case, he forged and uttered a finance document which involved additional aspects of falsity and fraud.
I have received victim impact statements from three of the complainants. The crimes committed by the defendant have had a significant adverse impact on the lives of the complainants and their families.
In the case of Mr Fraser, he spent years saving for a family holiday travelling around Australia, making many sacrifices to be able to afford the holiday. The financial impact of the crime committed by the defendant involved the distress associated with the holiday, forced recovery of the vehicle, and then the necessity of spending equity in their home to purchase an additional vehicle so he could maintain employment. As a father and husband, he has held himself to blame, and the ordeal has caused him significant mental stress.
In the case of Mr Kingston, his employment is not highly paid, but he makes a valuable contribution to the community. He saved long and hard for the purchase of the car he bought from the defendant. The defendant’s fraud resulted in the loss of his hard-earned savings and also impacted his self-esteem and confidence.
Mr Host and his business have suffered significant and ongoing impact resulting from the defendant’s fraudulent and dishonest conduct. He is the owner-operator of a small family business as a motor dealer in New South Wales and has been running his business for over 26 years.
In relation to this and all transactions, he conscientiously carried out his established process of due diligence.
The defendant’s fraudulent actions have resulted in the loss of $70,000 in the purchase of the vehicle and also significant ongoing costs, including interest and lost capital from the business which has inhibited further stock purchases. He was caught up in a legal dispute with Volkswagen involving engaging legal counsel and the associated costs. The dispute has now been finalised and he reached a commercial settlement. He paid out the loan with the finance company, so he has ownership of the vehicle. Taking this into account, the net amount of Mr Host’s loss is $44,553.00.
He is now reluctant to buy vehicles remotely as a result of his bad experience and this is having a significant impact upon his business and his ability to maintain his stock levels. He is suffering significant stress and symptoms such as elevated blood pressure and difficulty sleeping. He is now prescribed medication to help with these symptoms.
I have taken you, Mr Pennicott, in some detail through the impact of your crimes, so you understand that you have harmed innocent people financially, and adversely affected their lives.
The total amount the defendant has dishonestly obtained fraudulently is $119,980. As it transpires, the losses sustained by the complainants amount to a total of $93,533.
The defendant’s personal circumstances must also be taken into account. The defendant is aged 32 and has prior offending involving making false and misleading statements in 2020. In September 2022, he was convicted of these offences and fined a total of $4,000.
With respect to the crimes before the Court, the background was that the defendant had a plumbing business, and the vehicles were purchased by, and used in connection with, the business. The business was initially successful and doing well up until the COVID-19 pandemic and then suffered a significant downturn at the time of the offending. By the end of 2021, the business was no longer viable.
He was married with four children, and the relationship was stable. Then, at the time of the financial stresses, the couple experienced difficulties in their relationship. The defendant turned to drug use, having been introduced to drugs by his friends. As a consequence of his drug use, his wife initiated a separation at the end of 2021. The defendant increased his use and fell into debt.
It was in this context of the downturn in the business, the breakdown of his relationship, his increasing drug use, and his mounting debt that the defendant committed the crimes. He did not see his children for a period of 12 weeks and emotionally hit rock bottom. When arrested for the crimes, he took stock of his life and situation and turned his life around. He ceased his drug use immediately and has remained abstinent. He spent time rebuilding his relationship with his ex-partner and children and his mother.
He lives with his mother, and she is very supportive. His ex-wife also provides him with support. He has ceased all contact with previous friends and associates who use illicit substances, and he dedicates his time to work and his family.
He has shared custody of his four children, one week on and one week off, and is very engaged with their upbringing. The youngest suffers from Williams Syndrome which causes physical and learning difficulties and both parents are involved in providing the necessary support.
He has a new partner, and the relationship is positive and supportive.
He obtained employment and for the past six months has been employed full-time as a State Manager of a company. His hours are flexible and accommodate his fortnightly childcare commitments.
He has capacity to rebuild his financial circumstances and ultimately obtain a loan and repay the complainants once he repays other debts which have accumulated.
It can be seen that there has been significant improvement in the defendant’s circumstances, and that he has demonstrated a determination to reform.
I have a report from Community Corrections dated 18 November 2024. The defendant has been assessed for the imposition of a Home Detention Order and is assessed as suitable. He is also suitable for a community service order.
I have given careful consideration to the sentence in this case. Given the repeated acts of fraud, resulting in financial loss to four complainants and the adverse ongoing effect on their lives, a lengthy gaol sentence is well justified. There is a need for general deterrence and a need to reflect the gravity of the conduct and his criminal culpability which I have identified. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that those objectives may be met by a combination of sentencing orders which will be felt by the defendant, but which will also allow him to remain in the community and facilitate his rehabilitation. It will be obvious from the sentencing orders that the defendant has come very close to an actual term of imprisonment.
Mr Pennicott, I record convictions on all counts on the indictment. On counts 1-3, I record a global sentence of a Home Detention Order of 12 months.
I make an order that you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [address specified] at all times unless approved by a probation officer.
It is anticipated by me that this order will enable you to pursue your employment obligations in full and to meet your childcare commitments and those obligations and exceptions will be approved by your probation officer as exceptions to enable you to leave your premises for those purposes.
I also impose all of the core conditions set out in s 42AD(1). These include an obligation that you not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for the period of the order, which is twelve months from today. You must also submit to electronic monitoring for the operational period of twelve months, and the statutory conditions concerning electronic monitoring set out in s 42AD(1)(h) which are imposed.
On counts 4-8, I impose a global sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for the maximum period of three years. A condition of the suspended sentence is that you must not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for that period. Further, you must complete the maximum number of community service hours of 240 hours.
You must report to Community Corrections at 75 Liverpool Street, Hobart, no later than 4.00 pm today. In relation to the Home Detention Order you are obliged to attend Community Corrections immediately. You must report to a probation officer as required by a probation officer and comply with the reasonable and lawful directions of the probation officer. You must not leave, or remain outside, Tasmania without the permission of a probation officer, and you must notify a probation officer of any change of address or employment before, or within two working days after, the change.
I make the following compensation orders, pursuant to s 68 of the Sentencing Act: You must pay the sum of $28,000 in favour of Joshua Fraser; $20,000 in favour of Robert Kingston; $2,000 in favour of David Dutton; and an amount of $44,533 in favour of Bradley Host.