STATE OF TASMANIA v BRADLEY JAMES JETSON 17 APRIL 2019
AND DANIELLE ALYCE SALTMARSH
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Bradley Jetson pleads guilty to perverting justice. I also agreed to deal with his pleas of guilty to the summary charges of evading police, driving while disqualified and using a motor vehicle when its registration was suspended. Danielle Saltmarsh pleads guilty to making a false declaration.
Just after midday on Saturday 27 May 2017 the police saw Mr Jetson driving a white Commodore in Rocherlea. They turned to follow, intending to conduct a random breath test, but he accelerated away and out of sight. The police went to Mr Jetson’s home, nearby, to wait for him. When he arrived about half an hour later he saw them and again accelerated away. They drove after him but soon disengaged the pursuit. The police searched for the vehicle in the area and found it parked and locked in a street not far away. At that time Mr Jetson was Ms Saltmarsh’s partner. The car was registered to Ms Saltmarsh, but the registration was suspended due to unpaid fines. The police went to Ms Saltmarsh’s home and knocked on the door. She and Mr Jetson were both inside but did not open the door. The police returned to the vehicle, confiscated it and towed it to the police garage.
Late in the afternoon of 27 May 2017 Ms Saltmarsh phoned the police and reported that her car had been stolen. At about 9 pm different police officers, unaware of the events earlier in the day, met with her. She signed a statutory declaration in which she declared that she and Mr Jetson and their children had been at the home of a friend in Rocherlea since 12 noon on that day and that, after returning to their unit at about 6 pm, discovered that their car had been stolen. Mr Jetson was present when the declaration was made, provided other information confirming the circumstances of the supposed theft.
The police realised the falsity of the report on the day after it was made. On 30 May 2017 they issued a driver demand notice requiring Ms Saltmarsh to identify the person driving the car on 27 May, but she failed to complete it. Both defendants now admit that the report was false. Ms Saltmarsh made the declaration intending to conceal that Mr Jetson was the driver of the car which evaded the police. She knew he was the driver because she was a passenger. She must have known that he was disqualified. Mr Jetson participated and assisted in the false report to divert the police investigation and so to avoid future charges against him arising from the driving.
Ms Saltmarsh is now 27. She has full time care of her 7 year old daughter and is 26 weeks’ pregnant. She comes from a supportive family and had a good work record after leaving school until she became a full time mother at age 20. She has no relevant prior convictions. She was fined more than $1500 by a magistrate for failing to comply with the driver demand notice. I accept the submission of her counsel that dishonesty is out of character for her, that she had no genuine appreciation of the seriousness of her conduct. She acted from loyalty to her partner and to protect him from the consequences of discovery. However, it was not a spontaneous lie. Time was taken to formulate a plan which she then adhered to over some days. Mitigation arises from her plea of guilty. There has been some delay but it is not attributable to her. In October 2018 she offered to plead guilty to the charge for which she was subsequently indicted. Her false declaration had no effect and was quickly discovered. Mr Jetson did not escape prosecution. However there is a need to impress on her and others the inherent importance of honesty in making declarations. Her false declaration could have undermined the administration of justice and wasted a considerable amount of police time and resources, although it is relevant that it did not. Ms Saltmarsh is not suitable for community service, but her counsel informs me that she has capacity to pay a fine. I take into account the amount she has already been ordered to pay for the related offence. I consider a short suspended sentence combined with a fine is the appropriate sentence.
Mr Jetson is now 29. He had a good industrial record until he was made redundant, struggled to find work and became addicted to drugs. His relationship with Ms Saltmarsh was marred by his addiction and ended about 10 months ago. At the time of these offences he had been using methylamphetamine for about a year. He has a poor driving record but mostly for speeding and driving without a licence. He has no prior convictions for driving while disqualified or evading police. No danger was caused when he evaded the police. At the time he was disqualified by operation of an excessive drink driving notice, having refused on 7 November 2016 to submit to the taking of a blood sample after driving. He was sentenced by a magistrate on 13 September 2017 for that offence and others including two counts of driving with an illicit drug in his blood. He was disqualified for an effective period of 18 months and fined. Probation was ordered which he completed satisfactorily.
Mr Jetson first appeared in this court in January 2018. Some of the delay since then is attributable to him but some is not. He pleaded guilty once the appropriate charge was determined. He has used the period of delay to distance himself from his associates and to rid himself of drugs. He has not re-offended. Persons who are convicted of perverting justice are almost always sentenced to imprisonment, not only to punish, but to deter others. I have decided to wholly suspend the sentence but order a community corrections order for additional punishment. These offences were committed prior to the legislative amendments requiring a separate sentence for evading police.
Danielle Saltmarsh you are convicted on the indictment. You are sentenced to imprisonment for two months which I wholly suspend for 18 months. You are also fined $1000.
Bradley Jetson, on the indictment you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months, wholly suspended for 18 months from today. It is a condition of that order that while it is in force you do not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach that condition then a court must order that you serve that term unless it is unjust. In addition, 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 105 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 complaint 35292/17, you are convicted on counts 2, 3 and 4. I impose one sentence. You are fined $1000 and disqualified from driving for 18 months from today. Any driver licence you have is cancelled. Because the car was confiscated I must also order that you pay the special compulsory penalty of $600. In respect to that sum and the fines imposed on both you and Ms Saltmarsh I may only allow 28 days to pay although you may apply to enter into a repayment plan.