STATE OF TASMANIA v JOSEPH ANDREW TONNER 3 JULY 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Joseph Tonner, the defendant, faces two indictments. I will deal with them in chronological order of the offending. He has pleaded guilty on one indictment to two counts of receiving stolen property, one offence having been committed in late July 2019, the other in mid-October in 2020. He has also pleaded guilty on the other indictment to one count of dealing with the proceeds of crime in early May 2022. The facts relating to the first indictment are as follows. On 28 July 2019, officers of Tasmania Police followed a vehicle being driven by the accused until it came to a stop outside his home. He got out and ran inside. The officers inspected several items of property that were on the tray of the vehicle. There was a piece of equipment which had been stolen on 9 June 2019 from a locked vehicle parked in a driveway of a home in Mount Nelson. Officers also found nine empty plastic 20 litre fuel containers which had been stolen from the yard of an earth moving business during one of two separate burglaries between 21 July and 28 July 2019. When spoken to by police at that time, the defendant gave them the keys to the vehicle and told them that the items of the back of the vehicle were his. However, he was arrested and on 29 July 2019 exercised his right to silence in a video recorded interview. He was then charged and detained but later bailed having spent one night in custody. The piece of equipment valued at about $1,250 has been returned to its owner while the fuel containers remain in the possession of police. Next, on 14 October 2020 police executed a search warrant at a property on Stonehenge Road, Stonehenge with a warrant specifying firearms and stolen property as the evidentiary materials sought. The defendant was present when police arrived. Under caution he was asked whether he had anything on his property relevant to the warrant, and he said “No, I do not think so”. The search revealed a very significant amount of property that had been stolen. As recorded in the property seizure document there are 228 items. However, many of the item descriptions in the document involve multiples. For example, item one is made up of seven bottles of whisky, item 29 relates to seven pairs of binoculars and range finders. Item 89 relates to a bag containing screw drivers, gloves and hand tools, and item 124 relates to six different pieces of equipment. The value of the property that is referred to in the property seizure document is in the order of $250,000. Property to the value of about $100,000 has been returned to its owners, leaving, of course, property to the value of $150,000. That property is the subject of a forfeiture application.
As to the other indictment, on 3 May 2022 police executed another warrant at the same Stonehenge address where the defendant was then living. The search revealed four chain saws which had been stolen over a period of time going back as far as August 2016, a motorcycle stolen in March 2022, a utility vehicle also stolen in March 2022, and two packets of air rifle pellets. All the property was seized. It has a total value of about $61,600. When interviewed, the defendant told police that in relation to both the vehicle and the motorcycle they should ask two persons who he named, one as to the vehicle and one as to the motorcycle. All this property has been returned to the owners. As will have been evident, the total value of all property involved in both indictments is about $311,600.
The defendant is now 43 years old. He has a very lengthy recorded history of offending including a great many for dishonesty, in addition to traffic and drug related offences. In December 2005 he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months on four charges of assault and one of causing grievous bodily harm. In November 2016 for a number of charges including ones of dishonesty he was sentenced to a total of six months imprisonment, which particularly related to the offences of dishonesty and also driving with an illicit drug in his blood. In April 2021, again for matters of dishonesty and other miscellaneous matters he was made the subject of a home detention order for four months with a community correction order which included community service for 35 hours. Perhaps more significantly, in May 2024 for unlawful possession of property, he was sentenced to 120 days imprisonment to commence on 4 January 2024, and then in September 2024, for firearms offences including trafficking, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment to commence on 9 March 2024 with a non-parole period of one half. Those charges arose out of the search on 14 October 2020. More recently, in November 2024, on a charge of assault going back to 2023, the defendant was sentenced to six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three months, to be served cumulatively to the previous term imposed. All of that has seen the defendant in custody since 4 January 2024. He is eligible for parole on 8 December 2025, with the latest release date being 8 September 2027. It seems that the defendant’s early life was disrupted by alcohol abuse and violence, with his parents separating when he was nine or ten. He began offending when he was 15 which coincided with the use of drugs. The nature of the earlier offending suggests the need to fund drug use. The defendant’s counsel pointed out two separate periods of offending, the first between 1998 and 2008, the second from 2016 to date. So much is apparent from the record. This was explained on the basis that following his release from parole in 2008, he entered into a relationship which was stable, and which resulted in the birth of two children. He managed to buy the property at Stonehenge. Unfortunately, things changed significantly in 2016 when his brother was killed in a knife attack. The two were very close. The defendant had had an argument with his brother about the brother’s drug use just before this happened. His brother died the next day without the two having reconciled. All of that had a very negative impact on the defendant and he returned to drug abuse at which point offending recommenced, having fallen into bad company. More recently he has started another relationship with a woman, but his drug use has meant she is now also a user. While on bail some time ago the defendant attempted rehabilitation in Victoria but that was not successful due, I am told, to deficiencies in the management of the facility. Both he and his partner attempted rehabilitation, and it seems that she has had success while the defendant has not. They had a child just before he was put into custody last year. The child has been unwell, and the defendant is conscious that his partner is without his support. I was told that the child is a powerful motivating factor for him to rehabilitate himself. I was also told that the pleas of guilty came after a lengthy period of negotiations, as a result of which some matters were not proceeded with, leaving the way for pleas on these matters. I take into account the pleas of guilty to the extent that they obviated the need for jury trial. I note that receiving stolen property can be committed either by, at some point in time, receiving the property knowing it to be stolen or being in possession of it knowing it to be stolen, the point of difference the time at which the knowledge is obtained. Given the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the defendant knew at the time he received this property that it was stolen, although taking the alternative view would, in this case, make no real difference to the outcome. The inescapable inference is that most of the items would have been exposed for sale, either by the defendant or criminals on whose behalf he was keeping the goods, with some perhaps being retained for personal use. I take into account that as the defendant had retained possession, the property has been recovered.
Mr Tonner, I have set out the details of the crimes, your personal circumstances and things that I need to consider. These are very serious examples of these types of offending. It is very often said that without persons prepared to receive stolen property, there would be many fewer thieves. The total value of the property involved was very, if not astonishingly, high although it seems a fair proportion of it, or even most of it, has been or is to be returned to its owners. That notwithstanding, attempting to deter others from this sort of conduct, and condemnation of it, are prominent features. You are not to be punished for your record, but it is substantial and relevant, and attempting to deter you from further offending is also important. At the same time, I accept that there seem to be some prospects of your reform and rehabilitation, given your attitude towards your infant child. For the sake of convenience given the present sentences, I will impose one sentence on both indictments. That sentence takes into account the 50 days you have spent in custody relating to both indictments and the time you have spent and will spend in prison. On all charges you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively to the sentences presently being served. I think it is justified to allow you the maximum parole opportunity and I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of that sentence. I order the forfeiture of all items listed on pages 10 to 14 inclusive of the Crown papers relating to indictment number 57/2025 filed on 10 February 2025.