Talor Hammond, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences, which were committed between 13 and 14 September 2023 at the Langi Morgala Museum in Ararat:
[2]
At the time of the offending, you were 29 years of age. The prosecution opening has been provided to the court and is agreed to be an accurate account of events. A summary of the facts is as follows:
On 13 September 2023, the museum was closed at 3 pm for volunteer staff to attend a monthly meeting. The following morning, a volunteer returned and noticed broken glass on the office window and jemmy marks above the handle on the office door. He saw that the back door was open with the bar from the door on the ground along with pieces of the lock and a pair of tin snips.
Inside the museum, a cabinet containing jewellery had been smashed open and the jewellery was stolen. A cabinet containing weapons had also been smashed and, while the long arm guns remained, three pistols had been stolen, namely:
an English percussion revolver;
a hammer percussion revolver; and
a German World War II Luger, serial number 9660.
Charge 3 relates to the theft of the three pistols. It is a rolled-up charge, being a collection of identifiable charges bundled together into a single charge.
The volunteer also noticed that a black safe had been opened and some jemmy marks were on the blacksmith room. Some money tins were missing, although they do not form part of the charges.
Police attended the scene and examined the area, locating DNA from inside the firearm cabinet and from a pair of socks that were found. On 26 April 2024, the samples were analysed and showed very strong support that your DNA was on these items.
On 3 June 2024, you were arrested on an unrelated matter and conveyed to the Ararat police station. You were then arrested for the current matter and interviewed.
Although you initially denied the offending, you eventually made full admissions stating that you went to the museum as the 'carrier' with another person. The plan was to sell the items that were stolen. However, you stated that you did not end up with any money from the sales, as you were remanded in custody for unrelated offending about four weeks later.
Your counsel submitted that while the museum has public importance in the community, a burglary at this venue is less serious than a burglary committed at a residential premises. I am not sure that I agree with that and each case turns on its own facts. The overall seriousness of this incident depends more on the fact that you stole the firearms, rather than where they came from.
The parties agree that the theft of firearms is a serious offence, as it contributes to the illegitimate flow of firearms in the community and in turn may facilitate serious criminal activity.[1] This was not opportunistic offending. It is conceded that there was a level of premeditation and your intention was to sell the firearms. In my view, pistols are more likely to have financial value in the market than longarm guns. They have not been located and remain in the community.
In relation to the pistols, your counsel outlined that they are antiques and their value is unknown. It is conceded that it would be an aggravating feature if the firearms were operable, but your counsel submitted that this finding is not open on the material. In fact, the museum's firearm catalogue noted that all guns in the museum were inoperable. Your counsel submitted that the fact that they were not in working order results in the objective gravity of this offence to be significantly lower than it would otherwise be.
The prosecution concedes that although the firearms were noted as being inoperable at the time, it is unclear as to whether they could become operable again. If they are inoperable it can be mitigating, but there is nothing to suggest they would remain that way, nor is there any suggestion whether their inoperability was known to you at the time of your offending. The prosecution also submits that the selection of those firearms is an aggravating feature as the longarm guns were not stolen. The selective nature of the stolen weapons needs to be taken into account as pistols are particularly pernicious.
When considering the firearms, I accept that the brochure from the museum was likely to be reliable at the time. It is unclear whether the pistols could become operable again and I cannot assume that they were. Regardless of this, it would be terrifying for any victim to observe one of these pistols being used against them. The fact is that you stole three pistols and you are to be sentenced for that.
The stolen jewellery has not been recovered. There is no evidence of its quantity or value.
You were remanded into custody on 3 June 2024, where you have remained. You entered a plea of guilty when the matter was listed for a second committal mention on 5 September 2024. Parties agree that this plea was entered at an early opportunity and that it has a significant utilitarian benefit. You have saved the court and the community the time and expense of running a trial. In those circumstances, you have facilitated the efficient administration of justice and are entitled to a benefit for that.
Your plea demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for your offending. I also accept that there is evidence of some remorse by your guilty plea. I note, however, that you did not assist the police in recovering the weapons or jewellery and they remain outstanding. Further, you did not disclose the identity of your co-offender. These are not aggravating features of your offending, but they indicate an absence of mitigating features that would assist you. I consider your remorse is limited by your failure to assist authorities.
You have admitted your criminal history. It consists of one prior appearance in the Magistrates' Court on 26 June 2023 for eight charges, including threat to inflict serious injury, assault with a weapon, traffick methylamphetamine, commit an offence on bail and fail to answer bail. On 26 September 2023, your sentence was appealed and you were placed on a nine-month community correction order (CCO) with therapeutic conditions. However, you were again remanded on 9 October 2023 for further offences, including the offence of a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, commit an offence on bail and fail to answer bail. You were sentenced on 23 February 2024 to 135 days' imprisonment for the subsequent offending. On 16 October 2024, you were also resentenced for the contravention of the corrections order to a total of one month imprisonment.
As I mentioned, on 3 June 2024 you were also remanded for a number of unrelated offences. The current plea was adjourned part-heard to determine whether this other matter would resolve, which it did in December 2024. You pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to trespass, theft of motor vehicle and resist arrest. On appeal, you received a sentence of one month and seven days' imprisonment.
I turn now to your personal circumstances. You were born in February 1994 in New Zealand, where you were raised and remain a citizen. You are now 31 years of age and are not in a relationship.
You have an older sister and your parents separated when you were young. At first, you lived with your mother and sister in an unstable environment. Your mother had several abusive partners and you frequently witnessed physical abuse. You were also exposed to your mother's alcohol abuse. Your father gained custody of his children when you were nine years old and from this point your childhood was stable. You left school at 16 and worked on a dairy farm for about four years before becoming a sheep shearer.
You began using cannabis at 16 and methylamphetamine at 17. You state your use of methylamphetamine 'destroyed' everything, including your capacity to maintain relationships and stable employment. You have an eight‑year-old daughter who resides with her mother in New Zealand. You have not had contact with her for about four years but hope to positively re‑engage with her in the future.
Given your negative peer associations and long‑standing drug dependency, you migrated to Australia around six years ago, aiming for a better life. You began working with your father as a shearer in Ararat and maintained abstinence from drug use for more than 12 months. However, your seasonal work dried up for a period of months, resulting in your relapse into substance abuse and you began associating with negative peers. The offending before this court occurred during one such period.
You are now on remand and have been at the Fulham correctional centre. You are working in the food line, which you enjoy. You have remained in contact with your family while incarcerated.
There is no dispute that you were exposed to alcoholic abuse and violence in an unstable environment as a younger person. Your counsel has submitted that your offending history must be viewed in light of your upbringing and subsequent drug dependency issues. While there is no suggestion that these circumstances amount to Bugmy[2] considerations, they are nevertheless a significant feature of your background and I take that into account.
You are not an Australian citizen and your future upon your release from custody is uncertain. If you receive a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more, you may be deported. It is well accepted that the additional burden of the prospect of deportation is a relevant consideration in the sentencing process. I accept that the loss of opportunity to seek to remain here as a result of your offending will have an impact on your period of incarceration. I take that into account, as it increases the burden of the sentence I impose.
It has been conceded that a term of imprisonment will be imposed in your case, given the seriousness of your offending and your current incarceration for this and other matters. The theft of firearms is particularly serious in the context of this offending.
When considering the appropriate penalty, your counsel submitted that a CCO in combination with imprisonment would be appropriate and satisfy all the relevant sentencing requirements in your case, particularly as you did not participate in your earlier CCO for very long. The prosecution does not accept your counsel's submission, saying that an immediate term of imprisonment with a non-parole period is the only appropriate disposition.
An assessment for a CCO was undertaken on 21 March 2025. When you presented to the corrections officer, you positively engaged in the assessment. You acknowledge that you have received three formal sanctions since your remand in June 2024. You showed some insight into the precursors of your misconduct, saying that your offending here was committed when you were substance-affected. Your illicit drug use results in your not thinking clearly and you understand that you need to address your substance abuse, in order to avoid returning to custody. You regret your actions and want to move on. You intend to return to seasonal employment as a shearer upon your release.
You have been assessed as a high risk of general reoffending behaviour and deemed an appropriate candidate for a CCO. It is noted that the offending that this assessment relates to occurred prior to the imposition of your earlier CCO. You acknowledge that you do have the capacity to comply with obligations pertaining to a corrections order. You have indicated that you are willing to comply with the order and you have been found suitable.
I have considered the decision of Boulton v The Queen,[3] that even in cases of relatively serious matters a CCO may be an appropriate disposition.
The principles of general and specific deterrence are the primary sentencing considerations in this case. Denunciation and just punishment remain relevant in the sentencing mix. Rehabilitation is also a relevant consideration. Given that you acknowledge that you have to address your drug issues to avoid returning to custody, it is clear that you understand that your prospects are in effect, in your hands and largely dependent on your capacity to remain substance-free upon your release. Taking all the circumstances into account, I will impose a combination disposition.
I take into account the maximum penalty for these offences and current sentencing practices. I have considered the cases to which I was referred. The principle of totality is relevant and I have taken care not to doubly punish you for these offences, as they were committed as part of a single incident. I take into account the time you have spent in custody on remand as well as the two short sentences you have recently served. I accept that your supervision will be of benefit to you and the community. I have endeavoured to tailor your sentence to ensure that it is proportionate to your overall criminal conduct.
Balancing these factors as best I can I sentence you as follows.
[3]
In relation to all charges you are convicted and sentenced to:
a 12-month community correction order;
you are to report to Ballarat community corrections within two working days of being released from custody;
you are to comply with supervision;
to undergo assessment and treatment as directed for your drug use;
to participate in offending behaviour programs as directed; and
to participate in judicial monitoring at 9.30am on 2 June 2025.
I'll give Mr Hammond a chance to speak with you, Mr Brown, to make sure that he understands the order and if he will agree.
MR BROWN: Yes, Your Honour. Mr Hammond, are you content to agree to that order?
OFFENDER: Yep.
MR BROWN: All right, thank you.
HER HONOUR: All right, thank you very much. I'll just check if there's anything further we need to do.
MS MARTIN: Just the forfeiture order, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes, I'll make the orders for forfeiture.