STATE OF TASMANIA v SCOTT DEAN RADIN 14 OCTOBER 2020
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Scott Radin, you plead guilty to being accessory after the fact to armed robbery, making a false declaration and being in possession of stolen property. During the evening of Thursday 6 December 2018 you, at the request of your friend Nadine Bryan, agreed to drive her and a friend of hers you had not previously met from a motor inn on Westbury Road in South Launceston into central Launceston. You arrived to pick them up at about 10.30 pm. By then Ms Bryan was very intoxicated. Her friend asked that you drive to the Morty’s complex where you parked in the carpark. By then it was just after 11.00 pm. The man left the car and went into the BP Service Station at the southern end of the complex. Unknown to you he had brought with him a .22 calibre rifle which was hidden under his coat. Inside the service station he produced the firearm and used it to threaten the shop attendant while demanding cash and cigarettes. He stole $650 in cash and cigarettes, which he put into a plastic bag before returning to the car. It was only then that you realised that he had a gun, and that he had just used it to commit an armed robbery.
The man sat behind you in the rear passenger seat and asked to be driven back to South Launceston. You agreed. By doing so you became an accessory to the armed robbery. When you arrived back at the motor in you were given several packets of cigarettes, which by then you knew were stolen.
The presence of your vehicle at the scene of the robbery was quickly established. As a result, you were spoken to by the police the following morning and asked to make a statutory declaration. In the declaration you claimed no knowledge of the robbery, and lied about your whereabouts, and the whereabouts of your car, at the relevant time. You were spoken to again by the police that afternoon and, this time, you gave a truthful account of what had occurred.
You are 39. You have a good industrial and employment record as a commercial chef. You have two children under 10. You were divorced from their mother, after a relationship of 16 years, in 2016. It was a difficult process. You turned to drug use and fell into despair. During 2018 and 2019 you consulted a psychologist for help through what you describe as a terrible period. Until 2016 your record was for only traffic offences. In October 2018 you were fined and disqualified for a drug related driving offence. In December 2019 you were made subject to a six month community correction order for a series of drug and bail offences. In March this year you were again fined and disqualified for a drug related driving offence committed in September 2019. You have no prior convictions for dishonesty or violence.
The falsity of your declaration fooled no-one. No-one escaped prosecution as a result and your dishonesty was quickly remedied. You had no obligation to say anything to the police. However, the making of false declarations can undermine the administration of justice and waste a considerable amount of police time and resources. It is relevant that in this case it did not, but there is a need to impress on you and others the inherent importance of honesty in making declarations, especially in relation to crimes of such gravity. It is not a serious case of receiving stolen property. I mention finally the charge of being an accessory to an armed robbery. The seriousness of the underlying crime is an important sentencing factor. However the reality is that you knew nothing of the crime until a man you did not know sat back into the car you were driving, behind your seat, with a firearm he had just used to carry out a robbery. I accept your counsel’s submission that, by then, you faced the dilemma of whether to confront an armed stranger or simply comply with what he asked until you could get him out of your car. The State did not challenge your assertion that, although you were not expressly threatened, the fear and apprehension you experienced was the controlling factor in your agreement to drive him away from the scene of the crime. Concern for your own safety and the safety of your children, along with a wish to avoid a false accusation of greater involvement, also contributed to your decision to give a false account to the police. Such factors do not absolve you of criminal responsibility but greatly reduce the level of culpability.
It has taken some time to resolve because of the complicated nature of the prosecution of others involved. However the State accepts that your plea of guilty is to be treated as having been entered at an early stage. It has never been suggested that a trial would, in your case, be necessary. It is also a strong mitigating factor that you have agreed to give evidence against the person charged with the armed robbery. The State accepts that your evidence will be of importance. It is the policy of the criminal law to allow discounts in sentence in return for co-operation with the police and for giving evidence in relation to offenders. That is so for many reasons. It demonstrates responsibility and remorse, and involves acceptance of some personal risk. Had you not agreed to do so, I think it would have been much less likely that the State would have accepted the factual basis of sentence which is now advanced to me. If you fail to co-operate as promised, although I have no reason to suspect you will, the sentence may be reviewed and increased on appeal. For that reason I should specify the difference it would have made. Absent such an agreement I would have imposed one sentence, imprisonment for six months, four months of which would have been suspended for 18 months.
I have concluded, balancing all of the relevant sentencing considerations, that a sentence of actual imprisonment is not warranted.
Scott Radin, you are convicted on each count. I make a compensation order in favour of BP Australia Pty Ltd and adjourn the further terms of that order to a date to be fixed. On count 2 on the indictment, the false declaration, you are sentenced to imprisonment for three months wholly suspended for 18 months. On count 1 on the indictment, the accessory charge, I make a community corrections order for a period of 18 months from today. The core conditions of that order will be specified in the order you will be given and include that you not commit an offence punishable by imprisonment, that you report to and comply with the directions of a probation officer, that you must not leave Tasmania without permission and that you must notify of any change of address. I impose a special condition that you must, within the operational period of the order satisfactorily perform 70 hours of community service, as directed by a probation officer or a supervisor. If you breach any of those conditions you may be brought back to court and re-sentenced. On count 3 on the indictment you are fined $300. You have 28 days to pay that sum. As to the order imposing a suspended sentence I point out that it will be a condition of that sentence that during the period it is in force you not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition a court must order that you serve that term unless that is unjust.