STATE OF TASMANIA v GEORGE CORNELIUS ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 18 MARCH 2025
The defendant, George William Cornelius, born on 2 December 1993, has pleaded guilty to two indictable offences on complaint number 10072/2023, namely one count of burglary and one count of stealing. I have also agreed, pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code, to deal with a number of summary offences, namely complaint 10072/2023, count three, motor vehicle stealing, count four, threaten a police officer, count five, trespass and count six, breach of bail requirements; and on complaint 11186/2023, one count of burglary and stealing; and on complaint 10073/2024, count one, resisting a police officer and count two, resisting a person assisting police. I have accepted pleas of guilty through counsel to those offences.
On 20 October 2023, and into the early hours of 21 October 2023, the defendant entered a commercial property situated at 199 Macquarie Street in Hobart as a trespasser with the intent to steal. He gained entry to the building by forcing open a lock box outside and using fob keys located inside the box (that is count one on complaint 10072/2023 and counts one and two on 11186/2023).
The building contained the office space of several businesses, including the complainant’s C5 Pro Solutions and Licht Architecture. The defendant entered those spaces wearing a large wide brimmed hat, face mask and carrying a hammer.
Once the defendant had gained entry to the office spaces, he located the keys to a silver Volkswagen Utility, and found the vehicle in the car park. He stole the utility from the carpark and he drove away with items that he stole (counts two and three on complaint 10072/23, and count two on complaint 11186/2023).
He made multiple trips in and out of 199 Macquarie Street transporting the items he had stolen. The Volkswagen utility, valued at $42,900.00, was returned to C5 Pro Solutions.
Between about 11:00pm on 20 October and 3:30am on 21 October 2023, he stole and transported a large number of items of significant monetary value, belonging to C5 Pro Solutions and Licht Architecture, to the vehicle. He took the stolen items to his parent’s property at Kingston and placed them in a shed.
The items belonging C5 Pro Solutions comprised electronic equipment, including laptops and tablets, and surveying equipment and cleaning products, clothing, appliances and stationery. The total value of the items stolen from C5 Pro Solutions was $165,888.80, including GST. All of these items were returned to C5 Pro Solutions, however due to being weather damaged, they all required replacing and did not pass an appliance test. C5 Pro Solutions made a claim on their insurer, Sedgwick Australia Pty Ltd, to cover the cost to replace those items.
The items belonging to Licht Architecture, comprised computer equipment and other office equipment. The total estimated value of the property was $7,063.45.
Police were able to recover and return all of the items listed above, with the exception of a Dyson charging cord and extension leads, valued at a combined total of $623.00. Licht Architecture did not make an insurance claim in respect to those items not returned.
A compensation order is made, pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act 1997 in favour of Sedgwick/QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited in the amount of $165,888.80.
A compensation order is made, pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act in favour of Licht Architecture in the amount of $623.00.
On 22 October 2023 the defendant was arrested and interviewed. He said that he thought there were people linked to human trafficking working at 199 Macquarie Street. He told police that he was going to sell the property he stole to buy drugs.
When asked if he still resided at Bethlehem House, he agreed that he had not been living there. During this period, the defendant was bailed in relation to family violence charges to live at Bethlehem House and not change his address without the prior approval of the court. This was, therefore, a breach of his bail requirements and is count six on complaint 10072/23.
At the conclusion of the interview, the defendant was charged, processed and detained for court. He has been remanded in custody on complaints 10072/2023, 11186/2023 and 10073/2023 since 22 October 2023.
The defendant participated in a further video recorded interview on 27 October 2023 in relation to the burglary and stealing from Licht Architecture. He was cautioned and stated the following:
- This burglary was linked to the same set of keys.
- He took everything from this business but can not remember exactly what.
- Everything has been returned and he wanted to “fix everything that has gone wrong”.
- He wants to be compliant as he feels apologetic about what he did.
- He was adamant that there were not items anywhere else and everything was recovered from his parents’ house.
- He was using ice at the time. He would use two or three points for multiple days in a row.
I also note that the Crown facts cover the offending that I have already referred to, which occurred upon the defendant’s arrest prior to being first interviewed on 22 October 2023.
The defendant has prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty and violence, including burglary in 2020, burglary and stealing in 2023, resisting police and assault in 2023 and for breaching family violence orders. The State submits that it would not be unjust to activate all of those suspended sentences on that basis.
I have had the benefit of submissions from the defendant’s counsel and of an extended pre-sentence report. There is a very clear nexus between the defendant’s offending and substance abuse, which is important in sentencing in this case.
The pre-sentence report informs me that at interview, “Mr Cornelius took responsibility for his actions, explaining the offending stemmed from his consumption of alcohol and concurrent use of methylamphetamine at the time. He reflected this combination had been detrimental to his behaviour and lack of consequential decision making.”
The report also states, “Community Corrections records indicate Mr Cornelius has an extensive history of substance abuse issues commencing at age 17, namely methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol.“ Further, the reports says, “there is a clear nexus between his substance abuse and offending”.
Records indicate Mr Cornelius commenced cannabis abuse at age 17, describing himself as a heavy and daily user for the following nine years. Further, records indicate that he reported in October 2023, before remand, that he was typically smoking one cone once a week.
With regard to methylamphetamine, Mr Cornelius’ use commenced at age 17, with his most prolific use being up to three points of the drug per day.
Mr Cornelius reported lengthy periods of abstinence, as well as having completed the Salvation Army Bridge residential program in 2019, despite disclosing a tendency to become complacent during his recovery and consequently relapsing. He advised this relapse and escalating drug use was exacerbated by homelessness. Mr Cornelius’s mother reported he had attended the Bridge program possibly up to three times, however Mr Cornelius reported attending twice. This engagement was noted as not having a lasting effect.
Royal Hobart Hospital records indicate Mr Cornelius presented on 19 August 2023 with side effects following consumption of liquid buprenorphine and again as drug affected/intoxicated on 30 September 2023. I note the proximity of those admissions to the current offending. On the latter admission, Mr Cornelius also disclosed methylamphetamine and GBH use. Past medical records report Mr Cornelius having been admitted for drug induced psychosis in the past.
On interview, I am informed, the defendant reported not using any illicit substances or alcohol whilst on remand. Further, he reported engagement with services to address his substance abuse issues, namely alcohol and other drug counselling.
On 28 February 2025, the defendant’s AOD counsellor confirmed that he had engaged in one-on-one counselling, commencing January 2025. To the date of the report that I have received, he had attended five sessions with a focus on relapse prevention planning. He is reported to have engaged well, was willing to accept new strategies, displayed insight and motivation for change. Going forward, he will continue with one-on-one engagement whilst in remand and has identified potential post-release support services upon release. These are all important factors in sentencing in this case.
The pre-sentence report informs me that a risk assessment conducted by Community Corrections identified the defendant as requiring a high level of intervention from this service and thus has been assessed as suitable for a period of community-based supervision in order to formalise his continued engagement with JustACE, Men’s Resources Tasmania and AOD counselling, or with similar organisations post-release.
The defendant is convicted of each of the offences to which he has pleaded guilty and I take those pleas of guilty into account in sentencing. I also take into account the length of time he has spent in prison since October 2023, albeit attributable to other convictions until 22 January this year. And I take into account the positive aspect of the pre-sentence report, particularly his sobriety and drug free status on remand, and his positive indications of rehabilitation
With respect to the offences of which I have just convicted the defendant, I impose a single sentence of two years’ imprisonment, backdated to 22 January 2025 with the balance of that sentence from today, suspended on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years.
In addition, I make a Community Correction Order with an operational period of 12 months. In addition to the statutory core conditions I impose the following special conditions pursuant to s 42 AP of the Sentencing Act 1997:
- Section 42AP(e) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer;
- Section 42AP(g) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol dependency as directed by a probation officer; and
- Section 42AP(j) the offender must, during the operational period of the order, submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment as directed by a probation officer;
I direct you to attend Community Corrections in Liverpool Street, Hobart, within 24 hours of your release from prison.