Director of Public Prosecutions v Hussain

[2023] VCC 1607

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CR-21-00432

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

BASHIR HUSSAIN

---

JUDGE:	RIDDELL
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 August 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 September 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v HUSSAIN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1607

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW --- Sentence

Catchwords:              Arson --- Destruction of Building ---- Destruction of Business --- Ongoing Dispute with Landlord --- Financial Decline --- Act of Despair --- Plea of Not Guilty --- Ongoing Denials --- Good Character --- Family Hardship

Legislation Cited:      Sentencing Act1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:R v Dowell (1982) 6 A Crim R 113; DPP v Perrone (1989) 43 A Crim R 366; Moustafa El Masri v The King [2023] VSCA 93; Anderson v The Queen [2019] VSCA 42; McPadden v The Queen [2018] VSCA 57; DPP v McMahon [2017] VCC 148; DPP v Jansen [2017] VCC 1721

Sentence:                  3 Years 8 Months imprisonment -- Non parole period 2 Years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Tom Danos	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Andrew Waters Jeremy Karitzis	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

1Bashir Hussain on 1 April 2019, at about 3:30am, you set fire to your business, a pool hall and bar called Star Entertainment Centre. That act appears to be an act of desperation, born out of frustration and anger at a long-time dispute with your landlord and the apparent impact of his actions on the viability and ongoing success of your business. The fire burned throughout the top floor and caused extensive damage, not only to your business but to the entire building to such an extent that the ground floor was also inoperable for an extended period of time. The approximate value of the damage is $1,337,900.

2You pleaded not guilty but after a 10 day trial you were found guilty by a jury of one charge of Criminal Damage by Fire (Arson). Despite the jury verdict you continue to deny responsibility for causing the fire. Nonetheless, it is now my task to sentence you in line with the jury verdict.

3You were 38 at the time of your offending and are now 42 years old.

Background

4You purchased the pool hall business on Level 1 of 2-4 Round Tower Road, Dandenong South in December 2014, taking out a 5 year lease agreement with an option to extend. 

5The building was a standalone building. The landlord owned the building and operated a separate business out of the ground floor.  Up until 2017, the landlord operated the ground floor as a pool and billiards table supply business. 

6When you took the top floor lease you invested between $500,000 to $700,000 into the cost of the lease, purchase of equipment and set up of Star Entertainment Centre.  That money came from your life savings and from your family and friends.  You were able to repay that money once the business started operating. 

7You spent some months renovating the property and ultimately opened Star Entertainment Centre on 6 March 2015. It was a pool/snooker hall, bar, shisha lounge and restaurant. It was a large space, containing 29 pool/snooker tables along with the bar and shisha lounge.

8You worked hard to establish your business and it seems that Star Entertainment Centre was successful.  You were present on site every day, along with doing all the purchasing of food and drink and associated supplies and organising the finances.  It was a passion project for you. I heard evidence at the Trial from a number of your employees.  They spoke highly of you and variously described you as a good and friendly boss.  They said you had an excellent rapport with your customers, whom you considered friends. You were very involved in the competitions that were run at your venue and enjoyed being there.  In my view there was a level of affection for you from your staff and clientele.

9In 2016, the building was sold. Ownership changed hands to Mohamed Ali Khish, who co-owned the building and business with his eldest son Mohammad Shafi Khish. He with other members of his family operated those premises, including his younger son Mohamed Mustafa Khish.

10Mr Khish began renovating the ground floor business.  He changed that from a billiards supply business into a pool hall and shisha lounge called Dunya Entertainment. His business was therefore in direct competition with yours.

11Mr Khish approached you asking that you and he become partners in Star Entertainment Centre.  You rejected that offer.

12Your relationship with the Khish family was fractious.  You told police in your record of interview that at times power was cut off in the shared foyer, that your business phone line was cut off and that hot water was cut off.  You told police that Mr Khish was approaching your customers, offering them discounts to play pool at Dunya rather than going upstairs.  You say he told customers that the two businesses were the same and invited people to come downstairs rather than go up to Star Entertainment Centre.  You say he removed your advertising signs and at some stage locked you out of the building.  You say his behaviour resulted in you having to shut down the shisha lounge.

13I do not have to determine the precise nature or truth of each of those allegations, however, there is no dispute that you made a complaint to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2017, and that you and Mr Khish attended the Victorian Small Business Commission for mediation to attempt to resolve your disputes. Both of the applications to those dispute resolution bodies were made by you.

14Evidence was called at the Trial from a forensic accountant in relation to the financial decline of Star Entertainment Centre.  In short, the business was under a degree of financial strain, with income trending downwards in the period prior to your offending. In your record of interview you told police that takings were down by about 30%.

15An offer of $100,000 was made by Mr Khish in exchange for you moving Star Entertainment Centre elsewhere.  Given the high cost of moving billiard tables, the process of which in itself would have cost close to $100,000, and that your business fittings were paid out by you, you rejected that offer as meaningless.

16In your interview you told police “My life is really hard. I feel, like, I'm just in hell. Yes, because he has been, like, harassing me, like, since he bought the building. And when all those things … when I heard that … he is offering me $100,000 and then by saying … ‘you have to remove all your crap tables from there … And I was really, really upset from that. I said, ‘There’s no chance like that. I can’t do that. It is – what you are saying is it is just like a slap on my face straightaway.”

17That is the background to and context of your offending.

Summary of offending

18On 31 March 2019, three of your employees were working at Star Entertainment Centre. You arrived during the course of that night with friends to play snooker. The last of your employees left the premises at around 1am.  Your friends left at about 3am.

19Sometime between 3am and about 3:30am you started a fire in Star Entertainment Centre. I cannot conclude the precise mechanism of the fire. 

20Three construction workers, Mathew Micallef, Michael Jackson and Brian Birrell were driving in the area and saw flames coming from the building. They drove to the building and stopped outside for the purpose of calling 000. The 000 call was made by Mr Micallef at 3:41am.

21At this time the fire was well and truly alight and burning fiercely with flames coming out windows which had blown out.  Glass and other bits of metal and the like were hitting the veranda roof. 

22During the first couple of minutes that Mr Micallef was on the phone to 000, he and his co-workers saw you emerge from the main entrance of the building.  You were carrying black plastic bags which you then put into your car.

23The witnesses called out to you, highlighting that the building was on fire.  You then called 000. 

24In relation to the facts, argument was made at the plea regarding what conclusions I could draw about the origin of the fire.  Ultimately my conclusion is that I am in much the same position as the jury.  They were told that the Prosecution case did not depend on a positive conclusion about where the fire started.  The conflict of the expert evidence in that regard was relevant to and directed to their consideration of your state of awareness at the point in time when you were seen emerging from the building, and so it flowed, to whether you were aware of the existence of the fire at the point in time.

25I conclude, as the jury must have, that you were aware of the fire. You were aware of it because you lit it and then remained in the building for a number of minutes.  During those minutes, the construction workers made their observations of flames from about 1km away.  Then from immediately outside the building for up to approximately 7 minutes prior to then seeing you emerge.  There was no dispute that at that point it was a substantial blaze.

26In those circumstances, where the fire originated has limited relevance to the issue of sentence. I conclude that you lit the fire, in line with the jury’s verdict.  I accept that I cannot conclude that any flammable liquid was used for that purpose.[1] I cannot in fact draw any conclusion as to how or what you used to light the fire.

[1] Evidence of Prosecution expert, Mr Kelleher T349-350.

27I conclude that there was some level of premeditation and planning for that purpose, the extent of which I cannot know.  However, whatever means you used to light the fire, there was an understanding, and indeed expectation on your part that that fire had the potential to cause substantial damage and to destroy the business and its contents and by extension that it would damage the building. And it did.

28In the days following the fire you made a claim on your insurance.  That claim covered loss of business as well as loss of the contents and stock. I do not accept that you only sought to do ‘enough damage’ to make a claim for loss of business.  The idea that you could limit or control the fire, which you left already well alight, to such a degree of precision, in my view is unrealistic.

29The total value of the damage was $1,377,900. 

Interviews and arrest

30You were spoken to by police at the scene and claimed that it was only once outside and spoken to by the construction workers that you became aware there was a fire.  You denied knowledge of how that started but made a suggestion that a heater had been used by a customer.

31The following day you participated in a lengthy record of interview with police.  You detailed the history of your business and the issues with Mr Khish.  You again denied all knowledge of the fact of the fire prior to leaving the building and denied having started it.

32You attended by arrangement for a second interview on 12 December 2019, for the purpose of clarifying a number of issues.  Again you answered all questions put to you.  You were charged on that day and released on bail.

Sentencing considerations

33Arson is a serious offence. That fact is reflected in the maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.

34It is an offence of criminal damage which can be committed in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons.[2] Sometimes it is committed as an act of vandalism or of revenge. Not uncommonly it is committed as a means of dealing with a situation of financial difficulty and for the ultimate purpose of obtaining financial benefit from an insurer.

[2] See for example R v Dowell (1982) 6 A Crim R 113; DPP v Perrone (1989) 43 A Crim R 366.

35Not uncommonly, the offending is detected before any money is paid out – as is the case here. Not uncommonly therefore, the person who ultimately suffers the loss is the offender and by extension their family. 

36It often carries a high risk to property, to people and to firefighters charged with the duty of extinguishing it. Here, those workers were required to enter a building which was well alight, and to risk themselves in their efforts to contain it.  They were required to enter multiple times over an extensive period for that purpose.  Ultimately the fire was so fierce that it could only be contained using external fire fighting techniques.

37The damage caused by arson can range from minimal to extensive.  Here, the fire destroyed the contents of your business, and gutted the top floor of the building. The overall effect of the fire was so significant that the entire building was uninhabitable and downstairs business inoperable for about a year. The photos tendered during the course of the Trial vividly depict the extent of the destruction, with the upper story ceiling and roof largely fallen in, the windows blown out, billiard tables charred and destroyed, along with the bar and other equipment.

38The value of the damage here is reasonably high.

39Arson is often difficult to detect requiring, as it did in this case, expert examination to identify the likely seat, source and cause of the blaze.  It can be difficult to prove that it is the result of a deliberate intention. 

40For all of those reasons, general deterrence is a primary feature of sentencing.  In other words, the sentence I impose must deter others who are minded to set fire to property in an effort to destroy it.  It must deter others who are in a state of financial difficulty or who are vengeful or in some way dealing with a business competitor from resort to fire as a means of destruction. 

41The sentence I impose must denounce such behaviour on behalf of the community.  It must also look to achieve community protection, given the risks caused by fire and fire lighting.

42A person guilty of committing an arson which results in extensive damage must expect that imprisonment will be the likely result.

Objective gravity of offending

43When I determine the objective gravity of your particular offending, I note the following features.

44It is clear that you were in financial difficulty at the time of this offending. You state in your second record of interview that sales were going down and you could not afford to put on as many staff members as you previously had.

45The fact of your ongoing dispute with Mr Khish was confirmed in a statement of agreed facts read to the jury.  It included the fact that your dispute lead to legal proceedings at two dispute bodies; you made an application to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in February 2017 regarding the operation of your shisha lounge, which was settled between parties. Later that year other several issues were mediated by the Victorian Small Business Commission regarding losses suffered by you due to tenancy issues, including electricity, lights and cable connection being cut off, a competition being cancelled, and a 5-day lockdown of the Star Entertainment Centre.

46In your record of interview, you told police that over time you lost 50% of your customer base, which you attribute to the actions of Mr Khish.

47In my assessment your offending was the result in large part of the financial decline of your business.  That is apparent given you chose to set the fire to your own business rather than to the downstairs part of the building.  However, in my view your behaviour was also motivated at least in part out of anger and frustration with Mr Khish.

48The behaviour of Mr Khish in taking over the ownership of the building, and then setting up a business in direct competition with yours is somewhat reprehensible. Many people may feel you had a justifiable sense of grievance at his behaviour.  However, that does not justify the use of unlawful means to deal with those issues.  In particular, the means of arson which carries with it attendant risks to property and people.  So while I take those matters into account as the background to your offending, financial difficulty does not excuse taking the steps that you did.  

49Your actions to do so were premeditated and purposeful.

50Your actions not only affected your business and livelihood, but you committed an offence which impacted another’s business and livelihood in premises owned, not by you but by that other person. Pursuant to s.5(2)(daa) and (db) of the Sentencing Act 1991 I am required to take into account the extent of the actual damage which occurred.

51A victim impact statement prepared by Mr Mohamad Mustafa Khish, the son of the owner of the building at 2-4 Round Tower Road, Dandenong South and Dunya Entertainment, was read aloud to the Court.

52Perhaps unusually, he expresses sympathy for your family members, who he acknowledges are going through their own painful experience as a result of your legal predicament.

53However, his victim impact statement makes plain that Mr Khish and his family were severely affected by the fire.  He says Dunya Entertainment was their sole source of income and that due to the extent of the damage to their building they could not open their business for over a year. They were not covered by loss of income insurance and this financial strain bled into their family life, causing significant emotional turmoil which he states detrimentally impacted his university studies. Mr Khish writes that he feels frustration and anger towards you for having put his family through this experience.

54Those factors, along with the extent and value of the damage, aggravate the offending.

55In mitigation, I take into account that his was a standalone building.  Therefore none of the common risks of damage to adjoining buildings was present. 

56I take into account that you had positive knowledge that no one else was in the premises at the time of lighting the fire.  There was therefore no risk to any civilian person of injury or death.

57I cannot conclude over what period you determined to light the fire.

58I take into account that you did not obtain any advantage from this offending.  Your insurance claim was unsuccessful.  As is often the case where the fire is suspicious no payout was made. 

59In all the circumstances this a reasonably serious example of the offence of arson.  Your moral culpability is high. The extent of damage is high, and your attempt to receive an insurance payout is part of the context.  It is not uncommon for people who commit arson, in particular where there will follow an insurance claim, to be people without prior criminal history, and to be people who have fallen on difficult financial times.

Personal circumstances

60I turn now to your personal circumstances. I have had the benefit of oral and written submissions from your Counsel, Mr Waters, and a psychological report authored by Ms Daniella Kocic dated 4 August 2023. 

61You are a 42-year-old male born in Pakistan. You were the second eldest of your five siblings. You describe your childhood and family life in positive terms.  You say your parents were caring and loving and you have positive relationships still with your siblings. You speak to them by phone weekly despite the fact that you reside in different parts of the world.

62Your father worked in mining while your mother stayed at home to take care of the family. Your father had a fatal accident and died when you were 14 years old. It was at that time as the eldest male in the family, you took it upon yourself to parent your younger siblings.

63You completed high school in Pakistan and following this completed a double Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics and Computer Science. You have worked in various fields. Whilst in Pakistan, you worked as a secondary teacher, and you have worked in IT.

64You immigrated to Australia when you were 28 years of age.

65You married your wife in Australia approximately 15 years ago.  You and she have three young children, aged 1, 3 and seven.

66Since arriving in Australia, you have worked in various fields including information technology.  Of particular note, you report to Dr Kocic that you worked as a teacher at Melbourne University for 15 years until your employment was terminated as a result of COVID-19. That period overlaps with the commencement of Star Entertainment Centre which you established when you were aged 35.

67You have been the provider for your wife and young family.

68You were a proud businessman and you managed to create a successful business venture in Star Entertainment Centre. You repaid the funds lent to you and were recouping good rewards until the change of landlord.

69As I outlined, your employees who gave evidence at Trial spoke of you in glowing and affectionate terms. 

70Similarly, I received a number of references written for the purpose of your plea. 

71With one voice they describe you as hardworking and dedicated to your community.  In particular I have received a letter from the President of the Hazara Shamama Association of Victoria who attests to your commitment to that organisation since 2015 and to your active involvement in its initiatives and events.  I have also received a letter from the Chairman of the not for profit organisation Markazi Talimi wa Farhangi (UMMAT) who speaks of your volunteer work as a teacher from 1997 to 2009 and your regular attendance at workshops on Human Communication and Teachers Training.  You have also volunteered as an office assistant using your IT skills.

72Universally your referees write that you are a person of trustworthiness who would never wish to cause harm, a respected businessman well known for your integrity, responsibility and compassion in your community. You volunteered as a teacher of young children throughout your years at university and more recently you have also volunteered to assist in both manual and financial ways, demonstrating your desire to contribute to and give back to your community. You are described as having a genuine concern for others.

73I have received a testimonial from your manager at your new employer, Officeworks.  The author refers to your work ethic, the fact you travel 3 hours per day for your employment, and the fact you have been entrusted in one of their biggest customer service centres.  It is to your credit that you sought out and have maintained new employment since these events.

74I also take into account the letter you have written.  I accept that you are someone who has had a belief in the justice system and accept that you have earned honour and respect in your community over 40 years. 

75I accept you are a man without any prior criminal history. 

76I take your good character into account. In light of your previous good character, this offending is an aberration and distinctly out of character.

Family Hardship  

77Many of the references also speak of your dedication to your family, describing you as a great father and wonderful partner. I have received a letter from your wife who attests to your relationship. You are the sole financial provider for your wife and three children. She does not work.

78To that end, I also heard viva voce evidence on the plea from Mr Ali Hussain, a long-term friend of yours, and your sister and his brother are married. He has been present throughout these proceedings. You and he have known each other for approximately 20 years and are in regular contact, visiting each other’s homes regularly.

79He spoke about your close relationship with your wife, and the level to which she relies on you.  Your wife herself describes you as her “soul mate”, her “mentor”, “her best friend”, stating that you have shielded her from all the hardships of life. 

80Your wife has a difficult personal history. She is of the Hazara faith and as such she and her family were targeted by the Taliban.  Her parents both died in that conflict.  She came to Australia as a refugee fleeing from the Taliban regime following the death of her parents, accompanied by her aunt and uncle.  She was in her early teens. She spent months on a boat and then approximately 2 years in a Detention Centre.  According to Mr Hussain she experienced a great deal of trauma before arriving in Australia.  I have no reason to doubt his evidence about that.

81You knew your wife before getting married and fell in love.  Mr Hussain described your relationship with her as having “renewed” her as a person. Along with financial support he said you provide significant emotional and psychological support in way she had not previously experienced.

82According to Mr Hussain, on your incarceration your wife and family are likely to be unable to meet the cost of the private rental agreement for your current home.  They are likely to have to relocate to smaller premises.  In addition, your children attend a private fee Islamic school and have a number of privately funded extra-curricular activities.  Without your income, there is a probability that the children will need to move school and limit extra activities.

83According to Mr Hussain, your wife is also the primary carer to her aunt and uncle.  Her uncle is in his mid to late 70s and Aunt in her late 60s. They both have various health conditions including arthritis, lower back and knee issues and limited mobility.  Neither of them drives. Neither of them speaks English.  As such your wife takes them to various health appointments and, just as she did when they brought her to Australia, she acts as their interpreter. This is a formal carer role that is recognised by Centrelink. Her ability to undertake that role as a single parent will be compromised.

84Although your wife and Mr Ali Hussain and his wife are in contact, they both work full time and as such their ability to provide her and your children, or her aunt and uncle with practical support is limited.  

85Your Counsel makes the argument that your incarceration therefore will result in significant hardship for your wife, your children and her elderly relatives. Mr Waters and Mr Karitzis argue that this reaches a level of hardship which should be taken into account in mitigation of your sentence.

86Ultimately, I accept that your incarceration will indeed be difficult for your family, and in particular will cause significant distress for your wife. It will certainly also cause you distress to know that you are leaving them in this situation. I accept that you are a devoted, loving and supportive husband and father, and I understand from your own letter that you are most concerned about the interruption to those bonds. I do take those matters into account. Your wife’s personal background and her role as carer not just to your children but to her older relatives is a feature unique to your situation.

87However, as the Court of Appeal reiterated earlier this year in the case of El Masri v The King, impacts of this kind on an offender’s family are the inevitable corollary of the offender having been found guilty of a serious crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. That is not to say that they carry no weight in the sentencing synthesis. Indeed, sometimes the implications of incarceration for family members are so significant that they will weigh heavily in the sentencing calculus.[3]

[3] Moustafa El Masri v The King [2023] VSCA 93; Ahmed Mohamed v The Queen [2022] VSCA 136.

88While it appears that the common law test of exceptional hardship is no longer required, nonetheless I do not accept that what has been outlined amounts to circumstances which are so significant that they go far beyond the usual impact on a family when a parent and provider is placed into custody. Ultimately you wife will have Mr Ali Hussain and his wife, as well as her aunt and uncle, for emotional support. Further, her Aunt and Uncle also have an adult son, who may need to step in to assist them or your wife when needed in her carer duties. Your extended family and long term friends continue to be supportive of you and I expect will be available to assist your wife in some way.

Prospects of Rehabilitation 

89The psychological assessment conducted by Ms Kocic was limited by the fact that you continue to deny the offending.  You refused to participate in psychometric testing or to discuss the circumstances of the offending, other than to reiterate your issues with Mr Khish.  As such, there is no evidence before me of insight or remorse.

90Nonetheless, Ms Kocic assesses you as being a low risk of reoffending. I accept the salutary experience of being arrested and interviewed and going through a lengthy court process has already had a significant deterrent impact on you.  Your experience of incarceration is likely to be difficult and isolating.  I accept Ms Kocic’s opinion that you will be somewhat vulnerable in the custodial setting given your limited experience of antisocial peers, and that you may be the subject of victimisation and intimidation.

91I accept her assessment and agree that you are a low risk of any further offending, given those matters in company with your lack of prior criminal history, your age and your positive work history.  In a similar vein I accept that despite your lack of remorse and acknowledgement of your offending, your prospects of rehabilitation are positive.

92In light of those conclusions, I accept that specific deterrence has little work to do here.

Delay

93I take into account the significant delay in finalising this matter, none of which has been attributable to you. 

94You were not charged until after your second record of interview in December 2019, 8 months after the fire.  Your case entered the Court system just as the COVID-19 Pandemic began, with a committal mention listed 16 March 2020.  Throughout 2020 and as late as October 2021 Court dates were repeatedly vacated and adjourned due to the Covid pandemic and the Court backlog.  The fact you were on bail and the nature of your case meant it had little priority for listing.

95A Trial was eventually listed in August 2022, however was vacated due to a confusion regarding witnesses. It was then adjourned to the Trial date of April 2023 when it ultimately proceeded before a jury.

96After the verdict your plea was adjourned in order for a psychological assessment to occur. 

97You have been on bail for the entire period.  You have not been charged with any subsequent offence.

98You fall to be sentenced now, over 4 and a half years since your offending. 

99Delay is relevant to sentence in two ways.  First, an accused who is facing serious criminal charges tends to live in a state of uncertainty and anxiety pending the outcome.  Second, where there has been delay an accused may demonstrate efforts towards rehabilitation.

100Both of those features are relevant here. I accept that you have suffered the ongoing anxiety of having this serious offence hanging over you. I accept that your rehabilitation is demonstrated in so far as your lack of any subsequent offending and the fact you have continued to work to provide for your family.  I take those matters into account.

Plea of Not Guilty

101You pleaded not guilty to this offending and opted to run a trial which is your right. That fact does not aggravate the offending or your personal circumstances.  However, it means you do not receive the benefits which flow from a plea of guilty in recognition of its utilitarian benefit, or from that plea of guilty as an expression of remorse. 

Submissions as to sentence

102I turn now to the submissions made by your Counsel regarding sentence. Your Counsel implicitly accepted that imprisonment would result from this offending. 

103Helpfully I was provided a number of comparator cases by Mr Waters and Mr Karitzis.[4]  As always there are similarities and differences between the offending and the offender’s personal circumstances. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances, and that is what I have endeavoured to do.

[4] Anderson v The Queen [2019] VSCA 42; McPadden v The Queen [2018] VSCA 57; DPP v McMahon [2017] VCC 148; DPP v Jansen [2017] VCC 1721.

104What those cases do bear out is that many times arson is committed by a person in financial difficulty with a view to recouping money via insurance. Not uncommonly those people are without a prior criminal history and in a state of some desperation.

105Your Counsel make the argument that in all circumstances of your case, in particular your prior and subsequent good character, the particular circumstances surrounding your offending which led to an act distinctly out of character with your past history, the impact on your family and the delay, I should moderate the head sentence and, further, that a longer than usual non-parole period is warranted.  I accept that you are unlikely to reoffend and have a lack of other features such as drug use or anti-social attitudes which require treatment or rehabilitation. I accept that it is appropriate to moderate the period you serve before becoming eligible for parole.

Sentence  

106On Charge 1 of Arson, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment.

107I direct that you are to serve a minimum term of 2 years imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.