STATE OF TASMANIA v SAMUEL JAYDEN PAUL SMITH 17 DECEMBER 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER AJ
Samuel Smith, the defendant, has pleaded guilty to one count of car jacking, one of attempted car jacking, one of dangerous driving and one of aggravated burglary. These four crimes arose out of an extended incident on 28 August 2023. I am also dealing with his pleas of guilty to associated offences of attempted motor vehicle stealing, driving whilst disqualified and driving a vehicle while under the influence of a drug and incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. The facts are as follows. At the relevant time, the defendant was disqualified from driving and at the time of the commission of the offences, he was under the influences of a drug – most likely methylamphetamine – which rendered him incapable of properly managing a vehicle. At about 8pm, Nathan Garwood was at a carwash in Huonville, washing his car. The defendant approached him, told him he was going to take the car and got into the driver’s seat. Mr Garwood was then leaning inside the rear and he got in to the back seat. The defendant drove away while the backdoor was still open and drove in the direction of Kingston. After a short distance, Mr Garwood told the defendant to pull over because he wanted to get out. The defendant in fact pulled over, and Mr Garwood got out of retrieving a bag of his. The defendant then continued driving north towards Hobart on the Huon Highway. On that journey he overtook a vehicle driven by Colleen Lodge. She had her daughter in the passenger’s seat. Once the defendant had overtaken Ms Lodge’s vehicle, he moved back in front and braked heavily. Ms Lodge then indicated to overtake and moved into the right-hand land, the defendant than attempted to make contact with her vehicle from the left hand lane but did not succeed. He then drove into the right-hand lane in front of the vehicle and both cars came to a stop. The defendant then reversed at Ms Lodge’s vehicle, forcing her to reverse away in order to avoid a collision. Both drivers stopped again, and the defendant got out having covered his head with a black jumper. He started to walk towards Ms Lodge’s vehicle and the occupants locked the doors. Just before he reached Ms Lodge’s vehicle, she drove off towards Kingston and they made a 000 call. About 20 minutes later, Matthew Hodge was driving towards Kingston and he noticed a vehicle parked in the right hand lane of the highway. This was Mr Garwood’s vehicle and the defendant was at the back of it gesturing at him to stop. Mr Hodge did so, assuming the defendant had broken down. The defendant told Mr Hodge to get out of his car, but that he could take his. Mr Hodge refused whereupon the defendant opened the unlocked drivers side door and began to pull Mr Hodge from the vehicle. There was a struggle lasting about 10 seconds but Mr Hodge was able to avoid being pulled out by leaning into his car. The defendant then walked around to the passenger’s side and opened the door. As he did so, Mr Hodge closed the driver’s door and drove away, with the motion causing the passenger side door to close. Mr Hodge drove for about 500 metres before pulling over to call police. As he did so he saw the defendant drive past. From this point the particularised acts of the dangerous driving charge continue. At about 8.40pm Mr Garwood’s Subaru was seen on Whitewater Crescent in Kingston travelling at an excessive speed in a 50kmh zone. The defendant was driving. He took a sharp right hand turn without indicating and the squealing of tyres was heard due to the vehicle’s speed. He then drove on to another street and was observed having driven over the footpath and through a children’s playground, ultimately becoming lodged in bushes at the end of the park. Again, police were notified. About 9.40pm that same evening, Darren Petty was home at his address in Kingston. His utility vehicle was parked in the garage of the house, and the garage door was open. He heard a disturbance and the horn on his vehicle sound, and then a male voice yelling words to the effect of “help me”. Mr Petty could hear the defendant attempting to start his vehicle and noticed him turning the lights on and off. He contacted 000 and waited outside for the police to arrive. Officers were fairly quickly on the scene and the defendant was arrested in the driver’s seat of Mr Petty’s car. When questioned and asked whose address he was at, the defendant said, “Fucked if I know”. Among other things he said was that he did not remember anything. An examination of Mr Petty’s vehicle showed that the defendant had partially removed the console and had fiddled with some wires. The defendant was taken into custody but refused to participate in an interview.
I have a victim impact statement of Mr Garwood dated 8 November 2024. At the time of the initial confrontation he remembers thinking that he was grateful his daughter was not in the car, and asked himself how was he going to stop what was happening. When driven away, he was worried that he would not make it back. He was very shaken immediately afterwards and kept asking himself why he had let it happen. He has ongoing emotionally difficulties. He says that apart from going to the local shop and to pick up his daughter – which are simple straight line trips with no real stopping – he cannot really go anywhere in a car without his friends. He is worried that something similar will happen again. He seems to get anxious when pulling up at traffic lights, always being on edge and looking about. He gets flashbacks and has trouble sleeping. He was inconvenienced for a time without the car and was reliant on other people to get him to work.
The defendant is now 27 years old. He has an extensive record of offending covering a variety of criminal conduct. There are multiple convictions for significant driving offences including whilst driving disqualified and driving with illicit substances present in the body. There are offences of dishonesty – in particular, motor vehicle stealing, drug offences involving methamphetamine and some for violence. Relevantly, on 12 October 2020, he was sentenced in this Court to a total of two years’ imprisonment for dangerous driving and evading police. On 23 September 2022, for offences of motor vehicle stealing and driving offences, including evading police, he was made the subject of a drug treatment order. He was progressing very well under that regime and had moved quickly through the relevant stages of progression, having incurred no sanctions. A relapse into methamphetamine use lead to this offending. I will come back to this point. On 7 December 2023 he was resentenced on the matters the subject of the drug treatment order and was imprisoned for a period of 12 months to commence on 29 August 2023. The defendant grew up and was schooled in the Huonville area. After completing grade 10 he obtained employment in the aquaculture industry and that continued for some time until interrupted by drug use. That use commenced with cannabis when he was about 14, with a progression to MDMA and then to heavy use of methamphetamine and heroin. Drug use associations corrupted him somewhat and his use of and need for drugs lead to offences of dishonesty and the driving offences. At the time of the offending he had been in a relationship with a woman for about seven years although there had been some interruptions to that contributed to by his drug use. They have two children, the oldest is six, the youngest was born during the period of the drug treatment order and is now 15 months old. The defendant had been able to reconcile with his partner during the drug treatment order, but that relationship finally came to an end, as differences could not be completely resolved. In the days leading to this offending, he resorted to heavy drug use. It was put that he was devasted with the breakup and did not even then have the tools to avoid the relapse into drug use. He can provide no explanation for his conduct. There was nowhere in particular he had to be, and there is no explanation for him attempting to commandeer cars as he had a car available to him if he absolutely needed it, although of course he was disqualified from driving at the time. I was told that Mr Garwood’s comments in the victim impact statement have affected him, and he realises the extent of the impact on his victims. Accordingly, he has some insight. He has been assisted in prison in relation to his drug use.
Very plainly, this was a course of grave offending. It was an extended course of criminal behaviour involve menace, threats and violence. Members of the community are entitled to go about their business without facing the risk of threats of violence and having their cars taken. Mr Garwood was driven off in his own car, a frightening experience for him, as he says. The attempted taking of Mr Hodge’s car is a serious case of attempt as it involved actual violence in the effort to remove him for his car. The manner of driving encountered by two of the victims created significant risk and of course at one point, the defendant attempted to bring about a side to side collision. In all of the this the defendant was significantly drug affected and ought not to have been driving. That gives rise to considerations of the summary offences, which should not be overlooked. Attempting to deter others from similar conduct and complete condemnation of this behaviour are paramount considerations. I take into account the pleas of guilty. I take into account that the defendant has been in prison since August 2023 and in custody on these matters since the expiration of that 12 month sentence. It is regrettable that the defendant was not able to resist resorting to drugs in an emotional situation and it is somewhat puzzling as to why he did not contact CMD personnel to seek assistance, given his success to that point on the program. There does not seem to be anything in his background to give rise to an addiction to drugs in the first place, and so it is not possible to find anything in respect of his drug use generally which would attract some leniency.
Mr Smith, I have set out the facts, your personal circumstances and what I see to be the relevant considerations. I probably do not need to repeat this to you, but this was truly appalling conduct. I am sure that it has caused emotional distress of an ongoing nature to the other victims, in addition to Mr Garwood whose victim impact statement I referred to, and indeed to bystanders at the carwash. A lengthy term of imprisonment is inevitable, but as I said I am prepared to take into account the period you have spent in prison to this point, and that this sentence will effectively be cumulative. I am prepared to grant you a degree of parole eligibility given your demonstrated capacity to achieve a significant degree of rehabilitation. You are convicted of all crimes and offences. By way of a global sentence you are sentenced to four years’ and nine months’ imprisonment to commence on 29 August 2024. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 33 months. You will be disqualified from driving for a period of two years from your release from prison.