Director of Public Prosecutions v Brown and Brown
[2024] VCC 1363
•6 September 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT SHEPPARTON CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case Nos. CR-21-01070, CR-21-01071,
CR-22-00943
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LIAM MITCHELL BROWN and LUKE ANTHONY BROWN |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PILLAY | |
WHERE HELD: | Shepparton | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8 April 2024 & 22 August 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 September 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Brown and Brown | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1363 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Arson; reckless conduct endangering a person, make threat to inflict serious injury; breach of parole; commit indictable offence whilst on bail
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958, s23, s197, s21; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; R v Koumis [2008] VSCA 84; , McPadden v The Queen [2018] VSCA 57; Whitten v The King [2023] VSCA 181
Sentence: Liam Brown: 3 years 6 months imprisonment; non-parole period 2 years 4 months
Luke Brown: 18 months imprisonment; non-parole period 12 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms C Duckett, of counsel | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Liam Brown Luke Brown | Mr D Rofe, of counsel | Slater Law |
HIS HONOUR:
1You, Liam Mitchell Brown, pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Indictment C2013720.2
2Charge 1, reckless conduct endanger persons contrary to s23 of the Crimes Act 1958 – maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3Charge 2, arson contrary to ss197(1) and 197(6) of the Crimes Act – maximum penalty 15 years’ imprisonment.
4Charge 3, make threat to inflict serious injury contrary to s21 of the Crimes Act – maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
5Related summary offence being commit indictable offence whilst on bail contrary to s30B of the Bail Act 1977 – date of offending 5 July 2020 – maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or 30 penalty units.
6Luke Anthony Brown, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Indictment C2013720.2
7Charge 1, reckless conduct endanger persons contrary to s23 of the Crimes Act 1958 – maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
8Related summary offence being breach condition of parole contrary to s78A of the Corrections Act 1986 – date of offending 5 July 2020 – maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
9The relevant offending occurred on Sunday, 5 July 2020. You, Luke Anthony Brown (DOB May 1990) and your younger brother, Liam Mitchell Brown (DOB January 1997), had recently lost your mother. You both began drinking and consuming drugs. On the morning of 5 July 2020, you, Liam Brown, attended at McLean Court, Shepparton and spoke to Rebecca Hume and Jasmine Lucini. This address is not far from 85 Olympic Avenue. Rebecca Hume usually resided at 85 Olympic Avenue but, at the time, she was staying with her friend, Jasmine. You, Liam Brown, asked Rebecca Hume to let you into her house at 85 Olympic Avenue. Rebecca said that she did not have the keys. You, Liam Brown, then started to get angry. Rebecca Hume asked you “What’s your problem?”, and you replied “You’ll see”. You, Luke Brown, were waiting for your brother outside while this conversation occurred.
10Shortly after that interaction, you were driven by an acquaintance to 85 Olympic Avenue, Shepparton. The house at 85 Olympic Avenue was public housing owned by the Department of Health and Human Services. Inside that house were David Hume, his partner, Emma Radford-Burner, and Travis Hume.
11The Hume brothers knew both of you.
12At about 7.46am, you both entered 85 Olympic Avenue through the open front door. The occupants of that house, David Hume, Travis Hume and Emma Radford-Burner, were asleep at this time.
13There was then some contest over paragraph 13 of the Prosecution Opening. It reads:
“At some stage Liam Brown was carrying a yellow propane blow torch inside the house.”
14It is the contention of you, Liam Brown, that you did not carry the yellow propane blow torch from the car inside the property. Rather, you picked up the yellow propane blow torch inside the house.
15The Crown contests this and refers the court to Minute 8.43.40 of the CCTV, which shows you, Liam Brown, with a bulge in your pocket exiting the car. The Crown further says that material shows you, Liam Brown, were in possession of the yellow propane blow torch at the time when you exited the vehicle.[1] The parties were content to resolve this issue by reliance on the depositions and via submission. I find that it cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt that Liam Brown carried the blow torch into the premises. This is for three reasons. First, his repeated denials as to this in the record of interview P582.17 Q135, P582.31 Q247-249.[2] Second, the photographs of other blow torches in the burnt bedroom of Travis Hume P290-310. Third, the photos of similar blow torches to those Liam Brown was found with located at the property D392, 393 – Photos 140-141.
[1]Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 26 March 2024 at [20]
[2] Deposition dated 12 May 2022
16I do not then accept the statement attributed to Ms Radford-Burner at [20] of the Prosecution Opening as fact. This means the fact of premeditation cannot be made out against Liam Brown, and his actions in setting fire to the house must be viewed as spontaneous acts.
17Both of you went to the bedroom where Travis Hume was asleep. A motion sensitive GoPro camera recorded your presence and actions in the bedroom for eight seconds. On that recording, you, Liam Brown, are shown holding a burning yellow propane blow torch which you applied to the side of a television, attempting to set it on fire. You, Luke Brown, can be seen next to him watching your brother. The television did not catch fire.
18During this time, Travis Hume remained asleep in the bed, which was only a matter of a metre away. (Charge 1, reckless conduct endangering persons (both Liam Brown and Luke Brown)
19You, Liam Brown, then went to Rebecca Hume’s unoccupied front bedroom. You used the propane torch to ignite combustible material in the room. (Charge 2, arson (Liam Brown)
20At 7.49am, CCTV captured the departure of both of you from the property. In total, you had spent 2 minutes and 37 seconds inside 85 Olympic Avenue. Outside, you got back into the vehicle which had dropped you both off, and then left the area. Five minutes after you left the premises, smoke was visible coming from 85 Olympic Avenue.
21Inside the house, Emma Radford-Burner woke to a loud banging noise and the smell of smoke. She and David Hume exited the property through the rear door. They were unable to use the front door because there were flames and smoke everywhere. Travis Hume also exited the house.
22Fire Rescue Victoria attended and extinguished the fire, which had gutted the house. It was assessed to require demolition.
23Later, Travis Hume told Emma Radford-Burner that he caught some of your actions on his camera in his room, and that it was both of you, Liam Brown and Luke Brown.
24In social media communications later that day, Emma Radford-Burner made accusations that you, Liam Brown, had “set the house on fire”.
25In reply, you, Liam Brown, left an audio message for Emma Radford-Burner on Facebook Messenger. There were 4 voice messages made around 5.00pm on 5 July 2020 and are Exhibit P3. You, Liam Brown, said you had seen the video of yourself and:
“I’ve got the oxy torch in Trav’s fucking bedroom you retard. When we got there the front door was already open … and how about you shut your little fucking no piece mouth cunt or I’ll cave it in … and try to throw my brother under the bus”. (Charge 3, threat to cause serious injury (Liam Brown))
26An arson chemist examined the scene. He concluded that there were two distinctive areas of origin of the fire – at or near floor level in the north-western corner of the master bedroom (being Rebecca Hume’s front bedroom), and on the edge of a flat screen television in the third bedroom (Travis Hume’s bedroom). Further, the cause of both fires was the ignition of combustible materials at each location. There was no indication that either fire was electrical or otherwise accidental in nature.
27On 6 July 2020, you were both arrested. You, Luke Brown, declined to be interviewed” You, Liam Brown, did participate. I will now come to deal with each of you individually.
Liam Brown
28You, Liam Brown, were born in February 1997. You are an Aboriginal man and were born in Benalla in Victoria. You have five siblings and are the middle child. You never met your father. However, your mother formed a relationship with your stepfather, Barry. You have no connection with your extended family. Your mother had been separated from her family at birth and adopted out as part of the stolen generation.
29You described your relationship with your stepfather as being difficult. You described physical and emotional abuse when you were examined by Ms Courtney Steffens, a clinical psychologist, who assessed you for the purposes of the plea on 15 March 2024, and provided a subsequent report on 2 April 2024. You were flogged regularly and humiliated in front of your siblings. You were diagnosed with ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome.
30Your mother was in a difficult relationship with Barry, and you described him as being very controlling. That difficult home life led to you living on the streets and couch-surfing from the ages of 13-15.
31Your mother was diagnosed with emphysema and then later with a heart condition. She ultimately passed away in the period immediately before this offending on 5 July 2020.
32You left school after Year 9 due to ongoing difficulties and homelessness. You began a bricklaying apprenticeship but did not complete it. You have been in receipt of a disability support pension since
Alcohol and substance abuse
33You commenced alcohol use at age 13 and illicit substance abuse at 14. Initially, this was cannabis and then quickly became polysubstance use, being methamphetamine which, by the age of 17, was an addiction.
34At about the age of 18, you attempted a rehabilitation program which did help to reduce but not eliminate your drug use. Significantly, you relapsed immediately following the death of your mother. You then consumed significant amounts of alcohol and drugs and did not sleep for several days, inclusive of the date of the subject offending.
35It is relevant to note that you told Ms Steffens that as at the date of her report you considered yourself recovered from your substance use and that you reported during the sentencing conversation with the elders that you had gone “cold turkey” and weaned yourself from drugs and alcohol.
Relationship history
36You have one significant long-term relationship with your partner. You have three children together, being aged five, two and one.
Previous forensic history
37Your criminal prior history was accepted on the plea. From age 15 there are predominantly drug and driving-related charges. However, there have also been charges for stolen goods, theft, burglary, unlawful assault, resist police and possession of controlled weapons. There have been no periods of imprisonment.
38You reported to Ms Steffens that you had been complying with your current bail conditions since July 2020.
39On Ms Steffens’ assessment, you did not have impaired intellectual functioning. Rather, you presented with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) and ADHD. In her opinion, you showed good insight into your wrongdoing.[3] You have a predisposition to Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).
[3]Report of Ms Steffens at [75]
Objective seriousness of the offending
40It was put that the objective seriousness of the offending was slightly below moderate by reason of the application of principles in Koumis, Verdins and Bugmy. There is no doubt that the principles of Bugmy inform the sentencing task in a general sense given there is no specific link from your past to the circumstances of the offending. Here, there is undoubtedly a situation of profound disadvantage leading to your homelessness at a young age and addiction to drugs thereafter. This is on a background of intergenerational trauma given your mother was a member of the stolen generation.
41It was contended by the prosecution that Verdins’ limbs simply did not apply as there was no demonstration of mental impairment. The prosecution argued that there was no interaction between any mental health state – which might have been a grief issue regarding the loss of your mother – resulting in the burning down of a house. I reject that submission given the evidence of Ms Steffens in her report. She diagnoses ADHD, Tourette’s syndrome and a complex PTSD.[4] She goes on to opine that such mental conditions are linked to your offending.[5] Such nexus occurs by reason that the death of your mother impacted in a profound way on your vulnerable mental state which was comprised by your mental conditions. I think it is clear that Verdins has application in this case given it makes plain that an offender need not suffer from a serious mental illness in order to have the Verdins principles apply.[6] I accept that your drug use plays no role in mitigating the sentence I impose however.[7] It may play a role in considering your rehabilitation.
[4]Ibid at [98-99]
[5]Ibid at [100-101]
[6]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 (“Verdins”) at [5]
[7]R v Koumis [2008] VSCA 84 (“Koumis”) at [53]
42In my view, the gravity of your offending is objectively more than moderate. The conversation that you had with Rebecca Hume prior to attending at 85 Olympic Avenue indicates that you had a real intention to enter the house by gaining entry without alerting the occupants inside. This much is apparent by the fact that you requested keys. You and your brother then deliberately obtained transport to the premises. You both entered those premises. However, once inside you ascertained that at least one occupant was sleeping, and while that was occurring you, Liam Brown, attempted to light the television. That action of Liam Brown I accept as being spontaneous given my earlier finding that the blow torch was not carried into the premises.
43On the evidence of Mr Xydias, the arson chemist, there was ignition of the fire from this activity. Nevertheless, you then did not wake Travis Hume or any other person at the premises but went to another area of the house where further ignition of combustible material has occurred. You both then left the house knowing that other persons were resident there and were likely asleep. No effort was made to alert the occupants of the house or to summon emergency services. You both then left the area.
44It was behaviour which had the potential for extremely serious consequences. Overall, I assess the objective seriousness of the offending relating to Charge 1, being reckless conduct endanger persons, and Charge 2 of arson to be moderate to high.
45In respect of make threat to inflict serious injury by reason of the Facebook Messenger messages with Ms Radford-Burner, I consider this behaviour to similarly constitute objectively moderate to high offending. This is because you were well-aware by this stage that the premises which had been burnt had been almost totally destroyed, that in the process Ms Radford-Burner had been left without a home and most of her possessions and yet, in that circumstance, you made very significant threats against her. It was said that you were still in the grip of alcohol and drugs and that you were “on a bender” at the time. That does not moderate the objective seriousness of the offending.[8]
[8]Koumis at [53]
46You, at the age of the offending, were 23 years of age. It is said that you expressed your remorse to Ms Steffens and also by your participation in the sentencing conversation. I accept that you are remorseful for your actions. You have also suffered under a lengthy period of delay from the time of the offending until the time of sentence. Some of this was by reason of negotiations where more serious charges were dropped.
47As a result, it is said that this plea was made at the earliest possible time. I accept that much of the delay in this matter occurred by reason of COVID and this Court’s availability to hear this matter as a Koori Court plea. It is also true, however, that there was delay caused by negotiations which resulted in two significant charges being withdrawn. Pleas of guilty were then instituted. I consider overall that the pleas were made at an early stage.[9]
[9] See Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169 at [29]-[32] and Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
48A Victim Impact Statement was filed and read to the Court on behalf of Ms Radford-Burner. She spoke of the ongoing emotional distress that she experiences as a result of this offending. She describes having to leave the Shepparton area as a result of the offending.
49In this matter, counsel put a great deal of weight on the potential for you to rehabilitate. The following matters were put as particularly important:
· Your age and recent birth of two further children with your long-term partner. This was said to have solidified your sense of responsibility which also increased after this offending and is congruent with your maturation to adulthood.
· Your strong work history since the time of the offending. In particular, references were tendered from MRL Contracting, where you were employed from 2020 to 2023, involved in labouring work of loading and unloading containers. A further letter was received from Mr Bradley Boon, who works with Jobs Victoria Employment Services. He provided a reference which detailed how, after ceasing work at MRL Contracting, you had approached him seeking other work opportunities and, as a result, you were placed working at a solar farm as a labourer. That was on a short-term contract but the work was incredibly intensive, working 10 hours a day commencing at around 5.30am and in extremely hot conditions to install a solar farm. Mr Boon’s reference details how dedicated you were to this role.
· Your participation in a sentencing conversation indicating not only remorse but a willingness to reform your life by being more dedicated to your family. I accept that.
· Your return and connection to prosocial activities such as the Rumbalara Football Club and engagement with Mr Boon.
50It was recognised that there had been a number of matters in your past criminal history. This was accepted. However, during the course of the plea it was put that there had been good compliance with bail conditions and that this was a further indication of good rehabilitative prospects.
51However, at the plea the prosecutor tendered an up-to-date criminal history which showed a breach of the condition of bail that you were not to approach your ex-partner who has an intervention order against you. That shows you had contravened an family violence intervention order and were convicted and fined $500. I also note simply for the purpose of chronological recording that you are currently on remand awaiting a committal on other charges.
52On the resumed plea your counsel withdrew the submission that you have good rehabilitative prospects.[10]
[10] Additional Plea Submissions 18 August 2024 at [5]
53In this case, I consider that a term of imprisonment is warranted given the gravity and objective seriousness of the offence. It can be accepted that this is a situation where Verdins applies. As to limb one there is a modest reduction in the moral culpability attributed to your actions given the reporting of Ms Steffens as to how your psychological state affected you during the commission of the offending. As to limb 2 it has no role. However, the fact is that the crimes here are serious examples of offending which put the lives of several people in danger and destroyed a house in its entirety such that it had to be demolished.
54I accept and consider that general and specific deterrence must be part of the considerations moderated to a degree by the principles in Bugmy and Verdins limbs 3 and 4.
55It is also accepted that limbs 5 and 6 are engaged.[11]
[11]Report of Ms Steffens at [120]. At the further plea, prosecution accepts that limbs 5 and 6 may be engaged
56Denunciation and just punishment also have a role to play.
57In this case, I consider that a term of imprisonment of three years is appropriate in respect of Charge 2 (arson) and is the base sentence. In respect of Charge 1 (reckless conduct endanger persons), I consider 18 months to be appropriate. Twelve months will be concurrent and six cumulative. I am conscious to avoid double punishment given the offending arises out of the same act and thus there must be some concurrency. However, the elements of the offending are discrete and separate and so there must also be some cumulation.[12]
[12]McPadden v The Queen [2018] VSCA 57 at [78]–[79]
58In relation to Charge 3 (make threat to inflict serious injury) I consider that a period of six months imprisonment is appropriate, which will be concurrent with the base sentence.
59As for the related summary offence I will find it proven on the facts and impose no penalty given amendments to the Bail Act 1977.
60In total, the effective sentence is a sentence of three years and six months. I fix a non-parole period of two years and four months.
61I declare pre-sentence detention of 3 days, reckoned as time already served.
62Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 5 years.
63Disposal orders will be made.
Luke Brown
64Luke Brown, you were born in May 1990. You share a mother with Liam Brown. Your parents separated prior to your birth and you had a limited relationship with your father. You moved around frequently with your mother and five maternal half-siblings. You were often cared for by extended family.
65After your mother began a relationship with her partner, Barry, you were subjected to very stern treatment by both your mother and also Barry. While there was no physical domestic violence directed towards your mother, you reported that it was a very controlling environment.
66At the age of 13, you moved to live with your sister, Naomi. She had a young new-born son, Muna, whom you assisted in caring for. You were diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome as a young person and were often bullied at school because of your facial tics.
67You attended Wanganui Park Secondary College and were encouraged to complete VCE. You applied for a scholarship to St Patrick’s College in Ballarat and were successful. You completed Year 12 there. After leaving school, you worked at the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative while studying a Certificate IV in Youth Work. You then obtained employment as an Aboriginal Youth Justice worker. Unfortunately, you had to leave the field due to some conflict of interest. You moved to Melbourne and began work brick laying. You worked as a fly-in fly-out worker for a period of time, but it did not suit you, so you returned to work in labouring positions, including forklift driving, meat packing and abattoir work.
68You commenced drinking alcohol and smoking at a young age. In your late teens, you began experimenting with a wide range of other drugs.
69You began to abuse substances, particularly in 2016 following the suicide of a friend. You identified this as leading to a significant decline in your mental health. You had some minor offending in 2017. However in 2018 more serious offending in the nature of trafficking a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity, possessing an unregistered handgun, possessing a drug of dependence and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime occurred. You received a significant custodial sentence in this respect in 2018 of 5 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. Pre-sentence detention of 659 days was declared.
70At this time, you were separated from your long-term partner, Riann. After completing your term of imprisonment, you were released on parole but continued to experience some problems with drugs. I have set out above the circumstances of the offending for this particular matter. The instant offences were committed while you were on parole.
71You admit that you were on an alcohol and drug-fuelled “bender” when you accompanied your brother to the premises. Mr McGlone, who appeared on your behalf, pointed out correctly that your actions were confined to attending with your brother and proceeding to the first bedroom where an attempt was made to light the side of a television. At the time when you and your brother left the room, the television was not alight. I have referred above to the fact that Mr Xydias, the arson chemist, describes the seat of the fire as being the television, which Liam Brown attempted to light. However, this was not your action. You have been charged on the charge of reckless conduct endangering persons. Thereafter, you accompanied your brother when he lit other material in the front bedroom and you, and your brother then exited the property. You made no effort to wake those who were sleeping in the house.
72Turning to consider the objective seriousness of the offence. For reasons set out above, I consider the offending to be moderate to high. There was an element of pre-meditation in attending the house. Thereafter, you, Luke Brown, were aware that your brother had a blow torch in the house and used it on the television. Further, that he had used it again to ignite combustible materials in the front bedroom. At the time when Luke Brown exited the premises, the fire was lit and no attempt had been made to wake the sleeping occupants. In those circumstances, though you were drug and alcohol affected, it does not lessen the objective seriousness of this offending.
73It was put that Bugmy principles applied in a general sense. That much can be accepted. An offender’s background circumstances must always be taken into account in the sentencing synthesis. Here, the report of Megan Rogers was tendered by your Counsel. She had provided an opinion dated 17 February 2024. She noted that you had had exposure to alcohol and drug abuse in your family setting from a young age. You had witnessed your mother being assaulted by a variety of partners when you were very young. In addition, you came from a low socio-economic background where your mother was part of the stolen generation and, as a result, there was a degree of intergenerational trauma associated with your upbringing. This does impact your moral culpability for your actions in some way and moderates the weight to be given to deterrence both general and specific, and informs the issue of protection of the community.[13] I record however that this is a general level and no real attempt was made to specifically link the type of offending to the stated effects of childhood deprivation and disadvantage.
[13]Report of Megan Rogers’ at page 7. Bugmy at paragraph [44]
74Mr McGlone submitted that rehabilitation was the primary focus of any sentence. This was because there had been very substantial compliance with bail conditions since they were imposed. You had been a positive role model for your nephew, Muna, during many years. You had been working full-time, sometimes in two jobs. You had returned to football and had participated in the sentencing conversation, indicating a real degree of remorse for your actions. I accept that.
75As to these matters, Mr McGlone relied on two employment references from Mr McDonald of SMC Painting, and also Mr Kalafatis from JDK Management, where you are engaged on a full-time permanent basis, 40 hours per week, as a forklift driver and labourer. Both spoke of your hard work, punctuality and reliability.
76As to your compliance with bail conditions, this is true. However, there has been subsequent offending since the time of these offences in July 2020. Particularly, on 11 July 2022, where there was breach of an interlock condition. On 8 September 2022, there were charges in respect of possessing cannabis and MDMA tablets, and then on 18 April 2023 there were significant charges in relation to possession of substantial amounts of cash, 17 grams of methamphetamine and 11 grams of cocaine and associated tablets. A combination sentence was imposed of 60 days’ imprisonment plus two years on a Community Correction Order. These matters indicate to me that there still remain significant problems in respect of alcohol and drugs in your life.
77Just as a matter of chronology I record that at the time of the resumed plea and sentence you remain on remand in respect of recently charged offences. You are awaiting a committal hearing.
78Turning to consider the prior criminal history, it is notable for one significant charge which I have dealt with in respect of offending in August 2018. Other than that, there are more minor charges, particularly from your late teens.
79Given those matters, I consider that general and specific deterrence, punishment, denunciation and rehabilitation are the appropriate sentencing principles to give weight to.[14] I will moderate deterrence on the basis of Bugmy principles, but only slightly. This is because, while I accept the offending occurred immediately after the death of your mother, and this spiralled you into a familiar pattern of abusing alcohol and drugs, at your age you were well-aware of the effect of such a traumatic event and can be assumed to have a degree of responsibility for managing your behaviours. It is also relevant that you were on parole at the time of the offending. While I am careful to avoid double punishment, as I have to deal with the separate s78A charge, I mention your parole as being a factor which would have increased your awareness at this time that you had to take particular care in your actions because of the warnings you would have been given about the parole conditions.
[14] Whitten v The King [2023] VSCA 181 at [24]
80Turning to synthesise these factors In McPadden v The Queen [2018] VSCA 57, the Court of Appeal said:
“The essence of the crime of arson is the intentional destruction of, or damage to, property by fire. On the other hand, charge 2 required that the applicant foresaw that placing another (or others) in danger of death was a probable consequence of setting the fire, and a reasonable person in their position, engaging in setting the fire in the same circumstances, would have realised that they had placed another in danger of serious injury.”
81I make it clear that you did not set the fire as your brother did. In synthesising these matters, I am conscious of the very significant rehabilitative prospects that you have, given that you have re-engaged in full-time work, have a steady relationship, have just purchased a house and have re-engaged with prosocial support such as football. However, specific and general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation in this circumstance all require a term of imprisonment.
82I note above that I consider your plea to be a plea at an early stage and you are entitled to a discount in respect of that.
83On the charge reckless conduct endanger persons I will sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 18 months. This is because of your significant past history and past offending conduct.
84On the related summary charge of breach of parole I will sentence you to a period of 2 months to be served concurrently with the head sentence.
85I will impose a non-parole period of 12 months.
86Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for the early plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 26 months.
87I declare pre-sentence detention of 3 days, reckoned as time already served.
88Disposal order to be made.
8
0