RICHARDSON, C R

STATE OF TASMANIA v CAINE ROBERT RICHARDSON        22 NOVEMBER 2019

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                                            PEARCE J

Caine Richardson pleads guilty to having possession of a dangerous thing with intent to facilitate crime, possession of a firearm when subject to a firearm prohibition order and two counts of obstructing a police officer. The crimes were committed on 10 November 2018 in the course of what, in substance, was a 12 hour police siege of the home in Westbury Road in which the defendant then lived with his partner, Christina Watson. The police were first called to a disturbance at the home at 3.45 am. I have not been told of the nature of the disturbance, but the police reacted quickly. I infer that may have been because the police knew the defendant was involved and that this type of thing has happened before. They cordoned off the area and commenced communicating with the defendant and Miss Watson. They could see the defendant was agitated and ranting manically. He initially refused to present himself, but then, after saying he could not find his knife, came onto the porch without a shirt, holding scissors and wrapped in a doona which he said was to avoid being tasered. He threatened to get a gun and run at police so they would shoot him, although there is nothing to suggest he actually had a gun. He refused the police negotiator request to drop the scissors and went back inside. Thereafter he came to the door a number of times, holding either scissors or a knife. He disregarded police instructions and acted in an increasingly bizarre and paranoid way. Miss Watson told the police that the defendant had poured petrol inside the house. At about 5.00 am, after more than an hour, Miss Watson came outside and was escorted away.

Over the course of the following ten hours, the defendant refused to surrender himself to the police. Instead he barricaded himself in with furniture and by using a drill to screw doors and windows shut. He spread more petrol around near the front door. Additional resources, other police negotiators, the police special operations group, Tasmania Fire Service and Tasmanian Ambulance Service, were all diverted to the scene. The defendant’s bizarre behaviour continued. At one point some of the fuel he had spread in the hallway was ignited. He quickly extinguished the fire himself but then insisted on being provided with paint so he could repaint the damaged area. It was not until about 3 pm that he agreed to surrender. He did so while asking that he be taken for help for his mental health breakdown. He then followed police instructions to safely achieve that result and was taken into custody. When the police went inside they found a large wet petrol stain on the carpet in the lounge room, containers of petrol in the laundry and bathroom, smoke damage and fresh white paint on the walls and doors, burnt candles and cigarette lighters. They also found a torch which is a firearm as defined in the Firearms Act because it operated as a taser or stun gun. There was no other firearm.

After his arrest the defendant declined to be interviewed. He has been in custody since then.

The defendant is now 30. His father, who had raised him from a very young age, died from illness when the defendant was 10. That had the unfortunate result that he was committed to the care of his mother, with five step siblings, who lived in a dysfunctional and turbulent household. He was exposed to violence, alcohol and drugs and criminality. He very quickly began committing offences and has continued to do so ever since. He was first placed in detention when he was 11. He resorted to abuse of illicit drugs, first cannabis at age 10, and amphetamines at 12. He has been smoking and injecting methylamphetamine since he was 14. Such was his life outside detention that he offended so he would be detained. He served many periods of detention as a youth, where he was the subject of abuse. Much of his adult life has been spent in prison. His record includes many offences of dishonesty and violence, anti-social offences, offences against authority and offences involving drugs and firearms. A firearm prohibition order was made and served on 6 January 2014, the effect of which was that it was a crime for him to have possession of any firearm. None of the sentences, either prison or community based orders, have thus far diverted him from his heavy addiction to illicit drugs.

There are two prior convictions of particular relevance. On 30 March 2016 he fled from the police after having been found in a hotel room trafficking in methylamphetamine and other drugs. Three months later, on 27 June 2016, the defendant committed offences involved in a siege like standoff of a very similar nature to those for which he is again to be sentenced. He held the police off with bizarre behaviour and threats with a knife for several hours, in the course of which he set fire to a residence and adjoining business premises, causing much damage. He also claimed that he wanted to be shot by the police. He was sentenced by Brett J on 29 June 2017 to imprisonment for two years from 27 June 2016 with eligibility for parole after half of that term. He was released on parole in September 2017.

He was not sentenced for the trafficking until after his release. On 23 April 2018 I imposed sentence of imprisonment for 15 months but wholly suspended it for two years. I imposed a condition of the suspended sentence that he be subject to the supervision of a probation officer for 18 months. The crimes for which he is now to be sentenced constitute a breach of the terms of that suspended sentence. Application for an order upon breach is made. As a result, the term must be activated unless I am satisfied that is unjust.

At the request of his counsel I obtained an assessment of the defendant’s suitability for the making of a drug treatment order. The report reveals that following the defendant’s release on parole in September 2017 he substantially complied with conditions of parole but continued to use illicit drugs. That led to the suspension of parole for two weeks in December 2017. Despite commencing on the suboxone program in February 2018 his parole was again suspended in May 2018 for illicit drug use. Parole expired in June 2018 but he remained subject to probation. The assessment report indicates that in the period leading up to November 2018, the defendant once again relapsed into heavy use of prescription medications and illicit drugs. That was contributed to by a deterioration in his mental health arising from his involvement with proceedings at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, even though he has been receiving counselling concerning his traumatic childhood. The abuse he suffered as a child continues to strongly affect him. The author of the assessment report accepts the link between commission of the crimes and illicit substances abuse.

A drug treatment order is a sentencing order primarily directed to rehabilitation rather than punishment. The defendant contends for such an order in this case because he says he has resolved to try to address his addiction and his mental health. He has attempted already to access rehabilitation facilities and treatment here and overseas. He has sought counselling and treatment from a psychologist, a life coach and the sexual assault support service. He says he is motivated to reform by the associated goal of being a good father to his daughter. The Court has heard claims of this nature before. Much the same was said to Brett J in 2017 and to me in 2018 but the defendant is yet to demonstrate that he can transmit expressions of good intention into action. If an order is made permitting his release he proposes to live with his daughter’s mother, even though they are not in a relationship. She told the author of the report that she has noticed a change for the good in the defendant and believes he is ready to make positive changes in his life. She has no fears for their daughter. The author of the report, despite some understandable hesitation, which I share, assesses the defendant as eligible and suitable for the making of a drug treatment order.

The defendant committed serious crimes. Over a prolonged period a great deal of the resources of the public were devoted to the protection of the community, Miss Watson and to the defendant. Such was the bizarre and unpredictable nature of his behaviour that the police would have had no idea about what the defendant might do and were justifiably concerned about might happen to them and others and the property in which Mr Richardson had barricaded himself. If he was intending to use this as a means to obtain help for his mental health, it was misguided, selfish and unfair. The results could have been tragic.

Despite this I have concluded that I should fashion a sentencing order which permits the making of a drug treatment order. I am satisfied that the defendant has a demonstrable history of illicit drug use and illicit drug use contributed to the commission of his crimes. If I were not making the drug treatment order, a substantial term of imprisonment would have been inevitable, none of which would have been suspended. It would be easy to conclude that Mr Richardson should simply be put in prison again. The community would be safer for a while. However, as serious as the defendant’s conduct was, no-one was ultimately hurt. Miss Watson left after only an hour or so. The State does not assert any express threat to her. There was little property damage. The stun gun was not produced. The defendant has already been in prison for a year. History has demonstrated that more prison is unlikely to achieve anything except protection of the public while he is actually in custody without reducing the risk that he will offend again on his release. He is at high risk of re-offending. However if his addiction can be successfully addressed then the community as a whole will benefit. He has not previously had the benefit of the concentrated individual supervision and treatment which will follow from the making of the order. He and everyone else should understand that compliance will be difficult. Successful completion of the drug treatment order will require from him a determined and sustained effort over two years. If he fails at any point it is inevitable that imprisonment will follow. The defendant can confidently assume that if he does not take the chance which is now offered to him he is unlikely to get another chance.

I will activate most of the suspended sentence. It was breached only about seven months after it was imposed. Had the sentence not been wholly suspended it is very likely there would have been an order for parole which would have resulted in his release without serving the whole term. I will suspend the balance yet to be served without provision for parole because, in light of the matters I have discussed, I think that will add to the deterrent effect of the sentence and because it would be unjust make an order precluding the defendant from the drug treatment order. I do not regard s 27B(1)(c) as preventing that course because that is not the sentence for which the drug treatment order is made.

Caine Richardson, you are convicted on each count on the indictment. On the application for breach of the suspended sentence imposed on 23 April 2018 I find that you have breached the sentence by, while the order was in force, committing an offence punishable by imprisonment. I find that it is unjust to activate all of the sentence. Pursuant to s 27(4B)(c) I order that the following sentence take effect in substitution for that sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months commencing 10 November 2018. The balance from 26 November 2019 is suspended until 18 November 2020. If you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment while that order remains in force then you can expect to serve the suspended part of the sentence in addition to any other sentence which is imposed. It is the intent of that order that the community service part of the sentence, to the extent that it has not been satisfied, is discharged.

On the indictment I make a drug treatment order pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1997, s 27B. The custodial part of the order will be imprisonment for two years. You are not required to serve all or any of the custodial part of the drug treatment order unless it is activated. It may be activated if you fail to comply with the treatment and supervision part of the order which has the following core conditions:

  • you must not, in Tasmania or elsewhere, commit another imprisonable offence;
  • you must attend the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, Launceston on 19 December 2019 at 2.15 pm and thereafter attend the Magistrates Court or this Court as and when directed by the court;
  • you must report to a court diversion officer at Community Corrections at 111-113 Cameron Street in Launceston within two clear working days of your release;
  • you must undergo such treatment of your illicit drug use problem as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers or as from time to time specified by the Magistrates’ Court or this Court;
  • you must report to, and accept visits from, your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must, unless there are special circumstances, give your case manager at least two clear working days’ notice before any change of address;
  • you must not leave Tasmania except with the permission, granted either generally or in a particular case, of the Magistrates Court or this Court;
  • you must comply with all lawful directions of the Magistrates Court or this Court;
  • you must comply with all reasonable directions of your case manager and court diversion officers concerning the core conditions and program conditions of this order.

There will be further program conditions of the order that:

  • you must submit to random drug testing as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must submit to urinalysis testing as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must submit to oral fluid testing as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must submit to detoxification or other treatment, whether or not residential in nature, as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must not use any illicit drug;
  • you must not use any non-prescribed substance;
  • you must not use any medication unless prescribed to you by a treating medical practitioner or recommended by a pharmacist;
  • you must attend vocational, educational, employment, rehabilitation or other programs or as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must attend counselling and/or treatment as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers;
  • you must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed by your case manager or court diversion officers
  • you must maintain the use of, and remain contactable by, a mobile phone capable of sending and receiving 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.
  • you must reside at [address] and not be absent from that address between the hours of 10pm and 7 am unless attending residential rehabilitation as approved by your case manager;
  • you must attend for assessment and if deemed suitable enter into residential rehabilitation within Missiondale Therapeutic Community;
  • you must attend for assessment and if deemed suitable participate in the Equips Addiction program.