STATE OF TASMANIA v TRENT MERVYN LEONARD 25 JUNE 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Trent Leonard, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to two summary offences of evading police with aggravated circumstances, one of driving whilst disqualified, and one of breaching a bail condition. These offences arise out of the one episode of driving on 22 November 2022. The facts are as follows. On that date it seems he was living with his then partner, Ms McKenzie, at Kempton. This was notwithstanding that he was then on bail with a condition that he live at an address in Warrane and be there between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00 am. At about 4.20am on that day, he was seen by a police officer driving a sedan, south on the Midland Highway at Mangalore. Ms McKenzie, was a passenger. As it later emerged, Ms McKenzie was pregnant with their child and was concerned about the baby’s wellbeing. The defendant’s intention was to drive her to hospital in Hobart as a matter of urgency. When first detected, it was estimated the defendant was driving at about 160 kmh with the applicable speed limit being 80 kmh. The officer set off in pursuit, with the defendant passing an intersection at a speed of 170 kmh. When the defendant had to slow down for vehicles in front, the officer activated emergency lights and sirens, but as soon as the way was clear, the defendant accelerated heavily and went past the slower moving vehicles. At that point on the highway, travel in each direction is separated by a centre median area with small traffic islands. As a result, the defendant drove on the wrong side of the Midland Highway for about a kilometre at speeds of up to 170 kmh, before returning to the correct side of the ride near by the Brighton by-pass roundabout at Pontville. These actions are the subject of the first evade police charge. There then followed a high speed journey along the Midland Highway, Tea Tree Road through to the East Derwent Highway via Briggs Road and Baskerville Road. Police were stationed at the intersection of East Derwent Highway and the Bowen Bridge. An officer gave chase for about 800 metres with lights and siren activated but the defendant did not stop. That is the second evade police charge. The defendant continued to drive firstly at the speed limit through the Risdon area but then at high speed through Geilston Bay, and Lindisfarne where, at the intersection with Gordons Hill Road he drove over deployed road spikes. He continued on but at reduced speed through Rose Bay, and over the Tasman Bridge to the Emergency Department at the Royal Hobart Hospital where the defendant stopped the vehicle. He left Ms McKenzie in the car, ran off down Argyle Street and attempted to hide in some bushes but was soon found by police. He admitted driving the car, and was then arrested and taken to the police station. In the course of that journey, the defendant:
- crossed a single continuous line on the Midland Highway and overtook another vehicle;
- drove in excess of 110 kmh speed limit towards the Tea Tree road exit;
- crossed double continuous lines to overtake a vehicle on a blind corner at an estimated speed of between 80-90 kmh;
- travelled past two police officers who were in the process of setting up road spikes to put an end to his driving, at an estimated speed of 120 kmh, while crossing double white lines on the incorrect side of the road to overtake another vehicle;
- with one of those officers in pursuit, drove at 130 kmh in the 100 kmh zone into the Geilston Bay area and continued to travel along the East Derwent Highway at speeds between 120-130kmh;
- went through at red light at the intersection of East Derwent Highway and Derwent Avenue; and
- continued driving with three punctured tyres after driving over road spikes at the intersection of Gordons Hill Road and East Derwent Highway.
Shortly before driving over the road spikes, Ms McKenzie called the Police radio room and told the operator she was pregnant. When told to pull over, the defendant said he would not because he taking Ms McKenzie to the hospital and he was worried that if he stopped and waited, she would lose the baby. The police officer operator repeatedly told the defendant to pull over, saying that police could escort him and Ms McKenzie to the hospital. But the defendant continued. A short time later a police radio room operator rang and spoke to the defendant. He said he was continuing on to the hospital and was about to leave the Tasman Bridge. After being arrested and taken to the police station, the defendant provided a sample of oral fluid for analysis which returned a positive result for methylamphetamine. When interviewed, he agreed he had evaded police at Mangalore but chose to keep driving so that he could get his heavily pregnant partner to the hospital. He explained that the last time Ms McKenzie was pregnant it resulted in a stillbirth and he said he was not losing this baby; his only concern was her and the unborn baby. He said he knew that if he pulled over he was going to gaol, as he was in breach of a bail curfew. On 17 March 2022 the defendant had been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 12 months. He has been in custody on this matter since 21 November 2023, and there are an additional 18 days in custody that relate to this matter. His current disqualification expires today.
The defendant is now 26 years old. He has an extensive record of prior offending which effectively starts in August 2015. It involves a miscellany of offences extending to dishonesty and violence, but primarily the record encompasses a rather appalling history of driving offences. In addition to driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and driving whilst disqualified, of note is that on 15 October 2018 he was sentenced on two counts of dangerous driving with both offences being associated with evading police, while the second one involving being affected by methylamphetamine. The total sentence was three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one half to be served concurrently with sentences then being served which were imposed in August and September of that year. He was disqualified from driving for three years from the date of sentence. The defendant’s offending continued relatively unabated after his release, with convictions for assault, breaches of bail, traffic matters including driving whilst disqualified, matters of dishonesty and unlawfully setting fire to property. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment in June last year, some of it suspended and made the subject of an 18 month community correction order. Generally, he has shown little regard for court orders, including suspended terms of imprisonment. Given the history of substance abuse and the connection with this offending, I was persuaded to obtain a drug treatment order assessment report. A first report dated 23 April 2024 told me that the defendant was eligible for the CMD program, but he was deemed unsuitable for a number of reasons, including his poor compliance with previous community based orders, his behaviour in prison, the lack of stable accommodation, a reluctance to discuss his childhood and drug use and his attitude to avoiding opioid analgesics. On 14 May I was persuaded by the defendant’s counsel to seek a reassessment and I have a further CMD report dated 24 June 2024. That report confirms the defendant’s eligibility but also his unsuitability. While there sems to be some a lessening of concerns about the penultimate issue just noted, and no real concern about the last one, the first three are still regarded as past suitability despite some improvement in his behaviour to correctional staff. In particular, the suggested accommodation which was the subject of the first report, and remained the subject of the request for reassessment, was changed in the interim by the defendant to another address, and the CMD team was unable to contact the owner – a long time school friend of the defendants – despite numerous attempts. All in all, I think I have taken this as far as it can be reasonably taken.
His counsel told me of a rather difficult childhood. He was raised by his grandparents, believing he had a sister who was, in fact, his biological mother. He was able to establish a relationship with his biological father but that came to an unfortunate abrupt end when his father suddenly died. He felt left without family support and connections. He was using methylamphetamine at 14 but completed year 10 of secondary school. He left home when about 17, and then turned to a life of drugs and criminal behaviour. I was told that his period on remand in custody has been a very difficult one for him. He has almost exclusively been housed in maximum security sections, with associated lengthy periods of solitary confinement and lockdowns. No doubt, as submitted, such things would have had a very significant negative impact. But the CMD assessment report provides some context. As noted, there have been behavioural issues which have continued the cycle of heavy security and isolation. The CMD report notes that custodial records indicate numerous internal offences involving an assault on another inmate, fighting, damaging and defacing prison property, and attempts to incite other inmates to light cell fires. A summary speaks of “a long and sustained behaviour pattern consisting of staff assaults, code blacks, inmate assaults, throwing faeces underneath doors, cell fires or attempted cell fires, abuse and threatening language and behaviour”.
When he was released from custody in early 2022, he went to live with Ms McKenzie at Kempton. He seems to have had a stable period while there, training and playing football at the local club. She fell pregnant very shortly after his release but suffered a miscarriage in the early stages of that pregnancy. She was some 30 weeks pregnant at the time of this offending. She has a history of high risk pregnancies, including a stillbirth in 2012 and she was extremely anxious about the health of this child. She had been to hospital three times with concerns for the baby. The defendant was aware of her history. She woke him in the early hours of the morning, told him of her concerns and that she needed to get to the hospital. I accept he was gravely concerned for her and the baby. I was told that he had no faith that an ambulance would get to them in time and so he made the decision to drive. His sole motivation was to get Ms McKenzie to the hospital as quickly as possible. When he was told to pull over, his concern – rightly or wrongly, as counsel put it – was that the police would be more motivated to arrest and detain him, than they would be to assist Ms McKenzie. Counsel concedes that this attitude is likely to have been influenced by the presence of methylamphetamine in his system, but noted that the police did not call for an ambulance, and that the defendant explained during each phone call with police that he was concerned about the baby and was driving to the hospital. It was also pointed out that he was just told to pull over, with no guidance about what would happen with getting Ms McKenzie to hospital. Ms McKenzie gave birth to a daughter in January 2023. This child is the defendant’s first, and she has provided motivation to him to overcome his substance abuse issues. He had some contact with the child during a period on bail, and it was put that this was a very positive time in his life. Ms McKenzie is now to be regarded as the defendant’s ex-partner but, as I was told, it is hoped that when the opportunity presents, she will facilitate a relationship with the child.
Very plainly, this course of dangerous driving makes it a serious matter. There were obvious risks to the lives of other road users, his passenger and other members of the public. Police officers were also put at risk. Speeds considerably in excess of the speed limits were involved, as was driving on the wrong side of the road on three occasions and driving through a red light on an arterial road in a residential area, at a speed of about 130 kmh. Two attempts to intercept the vehicle failed, and the defendant did not stop even after three of the four tyres were punctured by the road spikes. In total, ten officers were involved in trying to put the defendant’s journey to an end. That he drove while disqualified should not be overlooked. That matter of course is before me and he needs to be sentenced for that. He was also driving while methylamphetamine was in his system and when he should have been present at a different bail address. General deterrence and attempting to deter the defendant from further offending are prominent considerations. Having said that, this is somewhat of an unusual case. As I have said, I accept that the defendant’s concern was to get Ms McKenzie to hospital. In very broad terms, it might not be seen as unreasonable for a person, living in a relatively isolated place and deeply concerned about the health of a family member to set off on a journey to try to get that person assistance as quickly as possible. However, it might be expected that an ambulance would be called and the time for help to arrive reduced by driving to meet it. In this case however, the defendant should not have been driving at all because he was disqualified, but this would not be the first case in which a person has driven whilst disqualified in a perceived emergency. However, the defendant had also been ingesting methamphetamine, and his perhaps otherwise understandable setting out on the journey needs to be viewed in that context. The real difficulty in this seems to me to arise when the first police officer was encountered at Mangalore. A more rational person, even one driving unlawfully, might have stopped and enlisted that officer’s assistance irrespective of the consequences for themselves. But, making irrational decisions and in very foolishly determined state, the defendant drove a very considerable distance at high speed in a dangerous and very risky manner. Fortunately there were no collisions and no-one was injured. I note that it was in the very early hours of the morning although clearly there were a number of vehicles on the roads at various points. I also note that continuing to drive after running over road spikes was a feature of one of the crimes for which he was sentenced in October 2018. Lastly I would observe that there is a very stark contradiction in trying to get Ms McKenzie to hospital as quickly as possible for the sake of her and the baby, while at the same time exposing her to a considerable degree of risk as a passenger.
Mr Leonard, I have set out the facts your personal circumstances, the relevant considerations and observations about your conduct. As I have said, I accept what your motivation was but I have made some comments on the wisdom or otherwise of what you did on that morning. I accept that notwithstanding your history there remain some prospects of your rehabilitation, particularly given the birth of your daughter and your motivation in that regard. I take into account the periods of time you have spent in custody over recent years. However, a lengthy term of imprisonment is inevitable. I will be giving you parole eligibility but I take into account, as was put to me, that there is a real chance that you will not succeed. But in sentencing, that must always be the case. You are convicted of all matters. On the first count of evading police you are sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to commence on 3 November 2023. On the second, the sentence is three months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively. On the dangerous driving and driving while disqualified you are sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively to the sentences just imposed. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served one half of each of the sentences I have just imposed. The conviction on the bail matter is, I think sufficient, and I discharge you on that matter. You are disqualified from driving for a period of two years to commence on the date of your actual release from prison, with any licence to be cancelled.