STATE OF TASMANIA v JORDAN THOMAS RILEY 20 DECEMBER 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Jordan Riley, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to three summary offences; stealing and two charges of driving while not the holder of a drivers licence. The facts are as follows. The complainant is Angus Seadon. The defendant and Mr Seadon were previously unknown to each other. Early in the afternoon of 28 November 2022, Mr Seadon and his friend, Michael O’Connor, went to an address in Ravenswood having arranged to inspect a motorcycle which he hoped to swap for his own. They went in a car, a 2002 Subaru Liberty, that was owned by Mr Seadon’s mother. When he arrived at the address, two men were standing next to a motorcycle parked on the street. Mr Seadon got out of the car and spoke briefly to the two men about the deal. As they were speaking, the defendant and a female came out of the house and began talking to Mr O’Connor, who was still sitting in the car. Mr Seadon decided he did not wish to go on with the swap deal and walked back towards his car. On his way, the defendant intercepted him and commented that it was a nice car and said that it would skid well. The defendant then lifted up the bottom of his jumper and gestured towards his waistband making it appear as if he was hiding a firearm, at the time saying to Mr Seadon “do you want to get fucking shot”. The defendant then pointed at Mr O’Connor who was still in the vehicle and told him to get out or he would get shot. Mr Seadon did not see any firearm but was generally scared for his life. Mr O’Connor got out of the car. The defendant got in and drove away in the vehicle. Mr Seadon was very frightened and started to vomit. He ran away, was picked up by someone else and driven to a local store where he called the police. Later that night, the defendant was filmed on CCTV at a service station, filling the car with petrol. He drove off without paying. The vehicle was located by police early in the hours of the following day. About two weeks later the defendant was arrested. When interviewed he denied all knowledge of the incident. The State does not assert that the defendant in fact possessed a firearm. The assault element of the crime of carjacking is made out by the threat. I have a victim impact statement dated 14 November 2023. Mr Seadon says that in the first three months after the incident he could not sleep, and keep going over it in his mind. He describes how he was very interested in buying and selling cars and motorbikes; it was a big part of his life. He would sell about one a week and was proud that he was able to make his own money as a result. Since this incident he has not been able to engage in that activity. He says that it has ruined the biggest interest in his life. He feels that just not able to do it. He does not feel safe and is worried that might be getting set up. This emotional response extends into his everyday life in that he now lacks trust in other people. He now does not go out much at all.
The defendant is now 21 years old. Particularly for his age, he has a lengthy recorded history of offending including offences of some seriousness. In the main, they are offences of dishonesty with some convictions for violence. Most recently, in April 2018 he was convicted of robbery and assault and sentenced to four months youth detention with a 12 month probation order to commence at the end of a sentence he was then serving. In March 2019, in this Court, he was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one each of aggravated assault and stealing. He was sentenced to two years’ and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. In March 2021, again in this Court, on charges of attempted aggravated robbery and assault he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment cumulative to an activated sentence of six months. At the same time, on a charge of attempted aggravated armed robbery he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended on conditions including community service. Lastly, for offending committed after this present incident, on 29 May 2023, he was sentenced to a total of ten months’ imprisonment backdated to 22 January 2023. He was eligible for release on 21 November 2023 but remains in custody on these matters. As to other relevant personal circumstances, I have the benefit of counsel’s submissions and a drug treatment order assessment report. The defendant has an unfortunate background with a father who was a violent substance abuser. Members of the defendant’s extended family are anti-social, many with substance abuse issues. He started using cannabis at the age of 11 and at 16 progressed to methamphetamine. Inevitably, this became a very significant factor in his life, with a high level of use, and explains most of his offending history. He has spent long periods in youth detention and in adult prison. After finishing year seven he completed the rest of his somewhat limited education in Ashley Youth Detention Centre. That said, I am told his mental skills are such as to provide him with some potential for more than menial employment. Youth detention made him vulnerable to anti-social peer influences. For a time he was reluctant to accept the need for help. After his release from custody in May 2022, there seems to have been a change in attitude and behaviour. He was abstinent from drugs for several months, with a new personal relationship providing motivation and support. The female concerned it said to be a positive influence on him. However, when the defendant’s grandfather died in September 2022, the defendant found it very difficult to cope and relapsed into methamphetamine use but was able to desist until further stressful situations arose in the form of his partner suffering two miscarriages. Once again his coping mechanism was to use methamphetamine. That, combined with his low mood, escalated his drug use leading up to the time of this crime. As to this offending, I was told and I accept, that it was not planned in any sense but was a spontaneous opportunistic act. He was heavily affected by drug use. He says he would not have offended had it been otherwise and is remorseful. He did not in fact have a firearm as I have noted, but accepts that Mr Seadon would not have known that. I note that the car was recovered with no suggestion of damage. I am told that in the last 12 months the defendant has matured in his outlook and he is willing to engage in all available treatment options and to accept assistance. As to the resolution of this matter, he was originally charged with aggravated carjacking. A proposal to plead to carjacking was made and rejected in March 2023 with that dispute ultimately being resolved. I take into account his pleas of guilty which at the least have practical value. The DTO assessment report puts him as unsuitable for an order. This assessment is based on significant concerns relating to his ability to participate in the treatment regime, given recent non-compliance with community based orders. In particular this related to the breach of an 18 month community correction order that started in May 2022, the breach being constituted by poor engagement and re-offending. At that time he was deemed not suitable for future supervision orders. There is also a suggestion of a prison drug offence but he has not been spoken to by any of the authorities and it is put no higher than that.
This sort of offending involves frightening, often actually violent confrontations on unsuspecting members of the public in public space. It is a significant invasion of a person’s personal security and property rights. As such, the need to attempt to deter others from like offending and condemnation of the conduct are of primary importance. In this case attempting to deter the defendant from further offending is also significant. At the same time, he is still a young man and it cannot be said that there are no prospects of his ultimate rehabilitation. The prerequisites to the making of a drug treatment order as set out in the Sentencing Act have been met. A Court may make a drug treatment order regardless of whether an offender’s illicit drug use contributed to the offender breaching, on one or more occasions, a sentencing order or bail conditions. With respect to Community Corrections, it seems to me that the very point of the diversionary program is to attempt to cut the cycle of addiction or substance abuse, and offending. The defendant’s counsel has made the point that it is not uncommon for those seeking the assistance of a drug treatment order to have previously failed in relation to community based orders. Counsel also made the point that there is no current charge arising from the suggestion of a prison offence, and the defendant is entitled to presumption of innocence.
Mr Riley, I have set out the facts of the matter, your personal circumstances and what I see to be the relevant considerations. Your conduct was completely unacceptable and comes in the context of a lengthy history of offending. However, in all of the circumstances I do consider it appropriate to make a drug treatment order. I will give you a chance. You are convicted of all matters and, subject to your agreement, I make a drug treatment order by which you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months 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 contain the core conditions as provided for in the Sentencing Act. They will be set out in writing for you. As to the core condition set out in par (b) of s 27G(1) which requires attending at Court whenever the Court directs, the first directed appearance which you must attend is the Launceston Magistrates Court on 23 January at 2.15 pm, and under par (c) of that subsection I order that you report to a Court Diversion Officer at 111 Cameron Street Launceston by 5pm this Friday, 22 December 2023. All of this will be put in writing for you. Program conditions under s 27H of the Act will be as follows:
1 You must submit to drug testing, including random drug testing, urinalysis and oral fluid testing.
2 You must submit to detoxification or other treatment, whether or not residential in nature.
3 You must attend vocational, educational, employment, rehabilitation or other programs, including the EQUIPS addiction program or similar program.
4 You must submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological assessments or treatment.
5 You must not associate with persons or class of persons as may be directed by the case manager or a court diversion officer.
6 You must live at [address] and not change that address without the prior approval of the case manager, a court diversion officer, a judge of this Court or a magistrate, and you must be present at that address between the hours of 10pm and 6am each day unless otherwise expressly authorised by the case manager or court diversion officers.
7 You must not use any illicit drugs or substances, or any prescription or non-prescription medication unless prescribed by a treating doctor or recommended in writing by a pharmacist.
8 You must maintain the use of a working mobile phone in order to send or receive messages about drug testing, case management and/or appointments from your case manager and court diversion officers, and you must remain contactable at all times.
[The defendant consented to the making of the order.] With that agreement, I make a drug treatment order in those terms.