Two years supervision for arms offences

Press, 8 November 1986, Page 5

Two years supervision for arms offences

A young man who tried to commit suicide three days before his sentencing on two arms offences arising from his setting out to rob a dairy, was placed under supervision for two years by Mr Justice Holland in the High Court yesterday. Special conditions of the supervision are that the accused, Antony James Leonard Ellis, aged 19, unemployed, take psychiatric and medical treatment as recommended by the probation officer.

Ellis had pleaded guilty in the District Court, and was committed to the High Court for sentence on charges of possessing a .270 calibre rifle with intent to commit an aggravated robbery, and attempting to use the rifle to resist his arrest, on July 26. The police statement, read when Ellis appeared in the District Court, was that on the night of July 25 he decided to rob a dairy in Ferry Road.

He took from his home the rifle, ammunition, and imitation pistol and a knife.

He was seen while walking through Linwood Park, on his way to the 1 dairy, and the police were called.

He was told to stop when seen by police in Ferry Road, but ran off, pursued by a policeman and a police dog.

He loaded the rifle and aimed it at the policeman,

who released the dog. Ellis dropped the rifle. He told the police he had the rifle because he intended to rob a dairy. His Honour postponed sentencing from yesterday morning until late afternoon for medical assessment of Ellis, to assure that there was no further risk of his attempting suicide; or supporting a further remand to a mental hospital.

He had described as “a crazy set-up we live in,” that Ellis had been described as suicidal, but not committable. He ascertained from Ellis that he had tried to commit suicide three days before, because everybody had said he would get five years.

In the afternoon, when Ellis appeared for sentence after the medical examinations, his Honour commented that neither District Court nor High Court judges had power to remand persons to mental hospitals without the necessary medical evidence. His Honour told Ellis he had committed two very serious crimes, which in these days of violence almost inevitably would be met by a substantial term of imprisonment. He said that apparently, however, Ellis was a deeply disturbed young man.

He had been remanded to Sunnyside Hospital for examination and a report, and this had confirmed

his disturbed state. He was desperately in need of help. Imprisonment would serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The courts recognised that some persons were in need of help. Ellis could not be helped unless he was prepared to help himself; he would not receive such lenient treatment if he offended again, his Honour said.