STATE OF TASMANIA v LIAM THOMAS RANSLEY 13 AUGUST 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
The defendant, Mr Ransley, has pleaded guilty to one count of attempted aggravated armed robbery, committed in the company of another, BR, on 13 February 2019. At about 7.50 am on that day, the complainant, Mr Fraser, was at his home in West Launceston with another man. The defendant knocked on the door of the unit. When Mr Fraser opened the door, the defendant said words to the effect of “what are you up to these days”, which Mr Fraser thought was strange. The defendant then looked to his right towards a fence leading to a car park. At that point, BR jumped over the fence and ran towards the front door with a firearm in his hand. BR pointed the firearm at Mr Fraser, who slammed the door shut. The defendant and BR kicked the front door in an attempt to gain entry. They were not successful. BR shouted to Mr Fraser in most abusive terms that he should give them his money. One of the things said was that that he was going to come in and, in effect, that he was going to shoot him. As the men were unable to enter the unit, they fled on foot. The events were captured on CCTV which was installed at the front door. The defendant was arrested on 14 March 2019 pursuant to a warrant that had been issued for a breach of parole. He was interviewed on 15 March about this matter but declined to comment. He was charged and detained, and has been in custody ever since. There is no victim impact statement. As I understand it, the defendant and BR knew of the complainant and thought he had some money.
The defendant is now 20 years old. He has a recorded history of offending starting in June 2017. In the main, these offences are ones of dishonesty and drug related. On 31 May 2018, on charges of aggravated robbery and stealing, he was sentenced in this Court to 17 months’ imprisonment backdated to 29 April 2018. The non-parole period was eight months and two weeks. He was released on 14 January 2019. On 2 May 2019 for offences of dishonesty committed shortly after his release, he was sentenced to one month imprisonment to be served cumulatively to any period of imprisonment he was liable to serve, but the record shows the execution of that term was suspended on conditions for 12 months. In relation to his personal circumstances and those of the offending, I heard detailed submissions from the defendant’s counsel. In essence, it was submitted that at the heart of this and earlier offending is a heavy addiction to methylamphetamine. As a result of the submissions I obtained a drug treatment order assessment report. That report is dated 5 August 2019. Relevant personal matters, and other matters that relate to the outcome are as follows. The defendant had an extremely dysfunctional upbringing. He was placed into foster care when he was about 3, apparently due to his mother’s substance abuse. He has four siblings, and he was separated from the three older ones. He reports that his experiences in foster care were largely negative, although his foster mother seems to have been supportive and a positive influence. Unfortunately, she died when he was 13. That led to various placements in other foster homes where he reported he was physically abused and mistreated. He removed himself from foster care when he was 13. He began to associate with people with antisocial and pro-criminal tendencies. Because of his disrupted and troubled upbringing, his educational years were significantly affected. He was suspended on multiple occasions, the end result being little formal education. He has never been employed. He has had little stable accommodation since leaving foster care. He has only met his biological father three or four times in his life. He has minimal contact with his mother, although the relationship is reported to be a positive one. He has some contact with his siblings, some of whom have had their own difficulties, but have been successful in rehabilitating themselves. I am told that he takes motivation from that. In terms of substance abuse, the report states that he started using cannabis at age 10. That remains an illicit drug of concern for him. Alcohol has also been a problem, but the primary drug of concern is methylamphetamine. Early information indicates self-report of the use of this drug at age 16, but during the recent assessment process he corrected this to 12, but whatever the true age, his teenage years were marked by methylamphetamine use. He says that large periods of his life have involved daily excessive consumption of that drug. He links this addiction to his current and historical offending, saying he perpetrates crime for the purpose of acquiring the means to purchase his drugs. I am told that there have been a number of events in his life that have contributed to his general dysfunctional background. When his foster mother died, and again when his foster brother was killed, he was not able to go to the funerals. More recently, a man he befriended in gaol died from cancer. He was able to be with him, but was deeply affected by his death. He helped his family afterwards. All of this led to an increase in his drug use. His arrest prevented him going to the funeral, a matter which has caused particular upset. He identifies these traumas as a major factor behind his continuing use and that and he says he escapes his distress in this way. According to the report, he has developed no other appropriate means of managing the emotional difficulties and distress. As he has a poor community-based supervision history, CMD holds significant concerns as to his capacity and willingness to comply with the stringent conditions of a drug treatment order. But, notwithstanding these concerns, he his considered to be a suitable subject for a drug treatment order. A significant factor in this seems to be his enrolment and present participation in a prison drug treatment program, with his attitude being reported as positive and sustained. I take into account the plea of guilty. I take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances. I accept that this crime, along with previous crimes, were committed in order to obtain funds to feed drug addiction. In ordinary circumstances, an addiction is not of itself mitigating except where there is something in the defendant’s background which helps to explain a descent into addiction. I accept that they exist in this case and that some considerations of leniency flow. At the same time, this crime must be regarded as a serious one. Although it involves an attempt, that does not necessarily make it of less seriousness than a completed crime. The defendant was in company with a man threatening the complainant with a firearm. The two persistent in kicking at the door in an attempt to get in. The defendant was a party to threats made to shoot the complainant. The circumstances of the case make it such that having regard to the seriousness of the crime, a drug treatment order might not be regarded as appropriate. However, such an order is not without punitive effect, given the onerous application of the program that is required, and it is an alternative to imprisonment. I propose to make the order. I note that with remissions he is due for release on 28 August 2019.
Mr Ransley, there is no doubt of course that, as I have said, this is serious offending. I have explained why that is. However, I think that, for the time being at least, the public interest rests more with your rehabilitation than with what might be achieved by further immediate imprisonment. As I have said, I consider that a drug treatment order should be made. You are convicted and, subject to your agreement, I make that order pursuant to s 27B of the Sentencing Act by which you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, all or any of which custodial part you will not be required to serve unless ordered to do so, or if the order is cancelled. That order will, of course, contain the core conditions as provided for in s 27G(1)(a) to (i). As to the core condition set out in par (b) which requires attending a court whenever the court directs, the first directed appearance is at the Launceston Magistrates Court on 13 September at 2.15pm, and under par (c) of that subsection, you will have to report to a court diversion officer at 111 Cameron Street, Launceston within two clear working days of your release. Program conditions under s 27H are will be as follows:
1 You must submit to drug testing, including random drug testing, urinalysis and oral fluid testing, as required by the case manager or court diversion officers.
2 You must submit to detoxification or other treatment, whether or not residential in nature, as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
3 You must attend vocational, educational, employment, rehabilitation or other programs, including the EQIPS program, as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
4 You must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological assessments or treatment as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
5 You must live at […] or such other address as approved in advance by the case manager or court diversion officer, and you must be present at that address between the hours of 10pm and 7am each day unless otherwise expressly authorised by the case manager or court diversion officers.
6 You must not use any illicit drugs or substances.
7 You must not use any prescription or non-prescription medication unless prescribed by a treating doctor or recommended in writing by a pharmacist.
8 You must attend counselling and/or mental health treatment as directed by the case manager or court diversion officers.
9 You must maintain the use of a working mobile phone in order to send/receive messages about drug testing, case management and/or counselling appointments from your case manager and court diversion officers, and you must remain contactable at all times.
[The conditions were explained to the defendant and he agreed to the order being made.]
I make the order in those terms.