By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Between the 5 May and 15 June 2023, Andrew Tanswell and George Leilua carried out a criminal enterprise that involved contacting men over gay dating app Grindr on the pretence they were one man interested in a sexual encounter, and on organising a meeting at the victim’s house, Tanswell would gain access and discretely let Leilua inside the premise afterwards.
The initial three robberies were perpetrated against men in their late 50s and 60s. Tanswell is today 41 and Leilua is 37. The robbers were interested in obtaining the men’s wallets and mobile phones but also in accessing their victims’ bank accounts either via an ATM card or through a bank’s app on a mobile phone, after the pair had persuaded those robbed to reveal their passwords.
The third offence of robbery differed from the first two as violence was threatened and used it to an extent. The fourth robbery diverged from the initial ones, as the Grindr user was only 27, and instead of arranging an early am hours meeting, the robbers arrived at their fourth victim’s home at around 10 pm, and when he resisted handing over his phone, Leilua threatened him with a kitchen knife.
The fifth victim was 45. The robbers turned up at his home at about 1.30 am, and the pair again threatened violence in order to gain access to the man’s bank accounts online.
However, Tanswell and Leilua didn’t get to withdraw any of the $5,600 in the man’s accounts, as they’d been blocked by the time it was attempted.
The first two robberies resulted in the pair obtaining $2,000 and $15,000, respectively, however the third and fourth crimes only resulted in $160 and then $128 being secured.
When Leilua was arrested on 15 June 2023, NSW police also seized 44 .22 calibre hollow point bullets illegally in his possession, while Tanswell was arrested the next day.
Crimes to be sentenced over
After initially attempting to lie their way out of the crimes during police interviews, the men entered early guilty pleas in regard to five counts each of robbery in company, contrary to section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty that applies to this crime is 20 years imprisonment.
The two defendants also asked NSW District Court Judge Andrew Colefax to take three further counts against them that comprised of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to section 192E(1)(b), on a Form 1, and they were considered in respect of the three specific robberies they related to. This fraud offence carries up to 10 years gaol time.
Under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), charges which have been laid against an accused but they have not been convicted in regard to can be taken into account when sentencing for a principal offence they have been convicted over, if the defendant requests this occurs.
Further, Leilua agreed to his Honour dealing with one count of being in possession of ammunition without being authorised, under section 65 of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), on a section 166 certificate. This offence makes a person found guilty liable to a fine of $5,500.
Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) permits the court to certify and transfer an offence into a broader criminal case that is usually focused on more serious crimes. These related offences or back up charges can then be considered in sentencing, and the document used to include these extra offences in proceedings is known as a section 166 certificate.
Judge Colefax assessed the first, fourth and fifth robberies as being about mid-range in terms of objective seriousness, whereas he deemed the second and third crimes slightly above midrange.
Expert witnesses
His Honour then turned his focus to each defendant, commencing with Tanswell, and in doing so, he raised the defendant’s psychological report produced by a Mr Albassit that was submitted to the court. The judge noted that the psychologist claimed to have produced it in line with the Expert Code of Conduct contained in schedule 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
The code of conduct relating to expert witnesses, such as psychologists or psychiatrists, must be followed when experts do provide reports or evidence to a court. The main duty of an expert witness is to remain impartial in drafting their report or in testifying, rather than acting as an advocate for the party that has hired them to perform this duty.
“The history of the use of experts reports (in both criminal and civil proceedings) has not been without difficulties,” his Honour explained. “In the 1980s and 1990s the use (or misuse) of experts reports in civil litigation (and the “gun for hire” perceptions which not unreasonably arose) gave rise to very considerable judicial concern.” And he added that this was why the code was legislated.
The NSW District Court judge added that a failure to comply with the code by an expert witness can result in the court rejecting the report that has been submitted in order to protect the integrity of procedures, and this can be done without any objection being raised by the prosecution, and this act has precedence in NSW courts.
His Honour further added that much public money covers Legal Aid expert witness costs, while those who cover their own costs usually pay exorbitant prices for an expert witness report.
Judge Colefax pointed to questions that arise out of this situation, which involve why experts depart from the code, why some repeatedly do, why solicitors then file these reports, why some solicitors continue to rely on experts who have breached the code, why solicitors require clients that aren’t subject to Legal Aid to pay for such reports, and why Legal Aid is continuing to fund them.
His Honour added that because of the recurrent problem he has identified, parties in court should not be surprised going forward that instead of judges reducing the weight given to suspect expert reports, instead they will be rejected outright. And he added that this had already taken place since he finished drafting his reasons, during another unreported case.
In terms of a September 2024 Albassit report, when its problematic nature was raised it was never tendered again. But another report dated from last November, which didn’t offer to “provide future treatment for financial reward” was still problematic, as it offered a treatment plan and recommended psychiatrist Dr Saker to oversee it, so this report was given less weight.
Amongst the documents that Leilua submitted to the court was a 17 September 2024 report by psychologist Ms Hawil, and his Honour noted that it too purported to be written in accordance with the Expert Code of Conduct and that the author of the report also works for Mindways Psychological Services in Wetherill Park.
Judge Colefax then explained that when it comes to the treatment plan this report recommends Leilua undertake, it outlines that it will be overseen by Mindways. So, in fact, this psychologist had done the same thing as Albassit did in his report – shore up future business – which breaches the Expert Code of Conduct. So, therefore, like the other report, this one was given less weight.
Sentenced to time inside
In terms of parity in sentencing, Judge Colefax pointed out that Tanswell’s criminal record was substantially larger and he was also on parole for another unrelated crime at the time of the offending.
But besides this, his Honour considered that both men held the same “moral and criminal culpability” in terms of the crimes.
On 19 May 2025, Judge Colefax sentenced Tanswell to 6 years and 8 months prison time, with non-parole set at 5 years, whereas Leilua was sentenced to 6 years and 2 months in gaol, with parole becoming possible after 4 years of time served.
No further penalty was imposed in regard to the section 166 certificate offence. And both sentences reflected a 25 percent discount for the utilitarian value provided by the men’s early guilty pleas.
