STATE OF TASMANIA v DYLAN KENNETH DONALD MEARES ESTCOURT J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 21 MAY 2020
The defendant Dylan Kenneth Donald Meares (aged 24), has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of stealing. I have also agreed to deal with a number of associated summary matters, namely a charge of motor vehicle stealing and 7 charges of computer related fraud.
At 7.20am on Wednesday 23 January 2019, the complainant, Vineta Lai Fun Lum, left her residence at Tolosa Street in Glenorchy locked and secured.
At approximately 4.00pm two police officers recovered an Audi A4 motor vehicle in a carpark in Goodwood. Police also located a white CCTV camera and the complainant’s wallet on the passenger seat of the car. The complainant’s wallet was missing a Jetstar credit card and an ANZ debit card.
Police attended the complainant’s address and on arrival, observed that the front door was ajar. They entered the residence and found that property had been strewn throughout the house. The complainant arrived home while police were present, and she confirmed that she was the registered owner of the Audi and that it had been stolen from her address. She also confirmed that a number of items had been stolen from her home.
There is CCTV footage from inside the complainant’s home which showed two males unlawfully entering the residence.
The items stolen included, the complainant’s wallet and credit cards, handbags, jewellery, foreign currency and electronic equipment.
As a result of police enquiries, a telephone search warrant was obtained for the neighbouring address in Glenorchy. Police searched the premises on the evening of 23 January 2019, and found a number of clothing items, which were later positively identified as belonging to the complainant and her husband.
On 24 January 2019, the complainant advised police that a number of fraudulent transactions had occurred the previous day in relation to her stolen ANZ debit card. The transactions totalled approximately $450. They are the summary offences of computer related fraud with which I am dealing with on complaint 1163/2019.
Police obtained CCTV footage from Woolworths from which they identified a female and the defendant making purchases, and at approximately 8.15am on 1 February 2019, police searched the defendant’s address in Glenorchy. In the course of the search police located a child’s battery operated car matching the description of that stolen from the complainant’s residence.
The defendant was arrested and conveyed to the Hobart Police Station where he admitted the burglary and stealing but denied stealing the motor vehicle.
The total value of the property stolen was $63,511. The complainant has recovered $44,099 from RACT Insurance Pty Ltd. The value of the property recovered was $200. I note that the motor vehicle was recovered undamaged.
The Crown makes two applications pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act 1997, firstly, that a compensation order be made in favour of Vineta Lai Fun Lum in the amount of $19,212 and secondly, that a compensation order be made in favour of RACT Insurance Pty Ltd in the amount of $44,099. I make those orders.
The defendant was sentenced to two suspended sentences on 10 May 2018. The Crown makes an application pursuant to s 27(4)(a) of the Sentencing Act to breach the suspended sentences.
The first suspended sentence ordered was one of 4 months in relation to complaints 11189/2017 and 7017/2017.
The second suspended sentence ordered of 3 months was in relation to complaints 2500/2018 and 6796/2017.
There is no opposition to the activation of those sentences. It is not suggested that it is unjust for me to do so, and I activate them accordingly. They are backdated to 28 April 2020.
Prior to being remanded in custody the defendant was residing in Queenstown with his partner and new born child. He is the father of 2 children, the youngest is two and half months old.
He had a most unfortunate upbringing, marked by parental neglect and violence. He was raised entirely by his mother and spent significant portions of his early years homeless. He had a younger brother who passed away, unfortunately, at a young age. This had a significant effect on his mother and led to levels of drug use on her behalf. It was not uncommon for the defendant to go days without food.
He was also the victim of violence at the hands of his mother. On one occasion suffering a broken jaw as a result of that violence.
Unfortunately he was homeless from age 10 to age 17. At 17 he entered into a relationship which lasted five years and which brought some stability to his life. The end of that relationship caused him to attempt to take his own life. On his discharge from hospital he began to live with a cousin who introduced him to methylamphetamine. He quickly became addicted, and the present offending was for the purpose of obtaining more of that insidious drug.
I note that he co-operated with police and pleaded guilty at a very early time. He is entitled to credit for that and a discount on an otherwise appropriate sentence is due to him. He gained very little from the crimes, all but the remote controlled car and some clothes, having been kept by his co-offender who he has not seen since the day of the offending. I also note that the defendant has been drug free since soon after the date of the offending, which is some 14 months. Prior to being remanded in custody he had a significant period where he did not offend in a similar manner.
The defendant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and anxiety and is medicated. However, aside from his poor mental state leading to drug use, it is not asserted by his counsel, Mr Hilly, that his mental health was relevant to the commission of these offences.
The defendant has a very bad record including for aggravated burglary and stealing as an adult. But by far the greatest proportion of the offences of dishonesty were dealt with in the Youth Justice Court. He is not however, to be sentenced for his record.
In my view, as I have said, it is not unjust to activate the suspended sentences, and I do so, as I have said, backdated to 28 April 2020.
The defendant is convicted of each of the crimes and offences to which he has pleaded guilty and I impose a single sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment to be served cumulatively to the activated suspended sentences. In view of the defendant’s age and his potential for rehabilitation, I suspend the last 5 months of the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment on condition that the defendant commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of three years.
The effect of my orders Mr Meares is that you are to serve a period of 12 months in custody, serving the two activated suspended sentences and the custodial part of my 10 month sentence cumulatively. The sentences commence on 28 April 2020. There is no eligibility for parole in that period.