Director of Public Prosecutions v Kazmar-Hall (No 2)
[2025] ACTSC 326
•28 July 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Kazmar-Hall (No 2) |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 326 |
Hearing Date: | 23 July 2025 |
Decision Date: | 28 July 2025 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [24] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – fire lit in response to neighbours unrelenting bass music – risk to other residents – reduced moral culpability – term of imprisonment already served |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404 |
Cases Cited: | DPP v Kazmar-Hall [2025] ACTSC 325 |
Parties: | ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Steven Kazmar-Hall ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel E Priestly (DPP) Self-represented ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Self-represented ( Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 237 of 2024 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
1․Mr Kazmar-Hall is to be sentenced for an offence of arson contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, 1500 penalty units, or both.
2․Mr Kazmar-Hall was found guilty of the offence following a judge alone trial: DPP v Kazmar-Hall [2025] ACTSC 325 (DPP v Kazmar-Hall).
The offending
3․The facts of the offending are set out in detail in DPP v Kazmar-Hall. Essentially, after enduring some three and half years of unrelenting music bass emanating from the adjoining unit of his residential complex, the offender lit a fire in his Housing ACT unit. It was found at the trial that this was not conduct done in self-defence, but rather, borne out of frustration, and in circumstances of the offender experiencing significant mental health effects as result of the noise.
4․The fire was lit sometime prior to 1:38am on 9 April 2024. Mr Kazmar-Hall set fire to a bedroom of his own unit, resulting in the premises being deemed uninhabitable and requiring extensive repairs. Photographs tendered at trial and on sentence showed the extent of damage to the bedroom. There is no evidence to suggest that the fire extended beyond the unit.
5․The evidence adduced on sentence, which included a psychiatric report of Dr Richard Furst dated 14 July 2024, included an explanation by the offender that he lit the fire by using a lighter to light paper. There were also storage boxes in the unit that caught fire.
6․Mr Kazmar-Hall then left the unit and went down the road. He communicated with another tenant, and was then cooperative with police when they attended.
7․Additional photographs tendered on sentence showed the sizeable sound system that was used by the neighbour in his unit.
Assessment of the offending
8․Any offence of arson is serious, particularly one that has the potential to harm a large number of people. The fire was lit in a residential three storey complex which had up to some 40 units for vulnerable and high-needs clients. Not only was their safety, and their lives, put at risk, but a number of tenants seemingly experienced significant distress from the fire. The offender himself at the trial described that there were people “screaming” after his conduct.
9․The finding at the trial included that the offender’s conduct was done with the intention to cause damage to the building. Nonetheless, the offender’s moral culpability in doing so is reduced. His intention, while entirely misguided, was borne out of considerable frustration and reflective of the years of aggravating noise emanating from the adjoining unit. This would lead to significant distress and frustration for anyone, let alone a person suffering the mental health challenges of the offender. The prosecution acknowledged this, submitting that any person would be significantly affected, let alone a person with the vulnerabilities of the accused (see below at [16]). The prosecution also acknowledged that, despite the previous ‘threats’ by the offender that he would respond to the noise by burning the unit, on the occasion that he did, this was done without planning or premeditation. Mr Kazmar-Hall reached a point where he could no longer cope with the noise.
10․However, even in a circumstance of long-standing torment being caused by the conduct of his neighbour, which was seemingly not being efficiently addressed by various entities, resorting to the highly dangerous conduct of arson is to be denounced and deterred. Fortunately, the fire did not spread beyond the offender’s own unit, and no accelerant was used, but the fire still caused significant damage, with financial implications for the community, as well as likely inconvenience for repairs. I am readily satisfied that the only appropriate penalty is one of imprisonment.
Current sentencing practice
11․The prosecution assisted with authorities as to current sentencing practice, with one authority being of particular assistance in terms of comparative value. In DPP v Jones [2023] ACTSC 20 (DPP v Jones) the offender pleaded guilty to offences of arson, common assault, and possessing an offensive weapon with intent. The arson involved causing fire to the front door of a public housing unit in response to a neighbourly dispute which included music bass concerns. The fire was lit using an aerosol can. The offender there was on conditional liberty, he had a substantial criminal history, and a disadvantaged childhood. For the offence of arson, he was sentenced to a term of two months imprisonment before reduction. The arson was done recklessly, reducing the seriousness when compared to the offending that occurred here. His Honour Mossop J observed in DPP v Jones that “the law does not recognise arson as a solution to having bad neighbours” (at [1]).
12․The other authorities, in which arson was caused to Old Parliament House (DPP v Reed [2023] ACTSC 310) and in a custodial setting (DPP v Death [2025] ACTSC 38; R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 42) involved, respectively, and before any reduction for the plea of guilty, sentences of 23 months imprisonment, suspended after eight months, 10 months imprisonment, and 10 months imprisonment, suspended after four months. As the prosecution acknowledged, given the circumstances involved in the offending in those matters, they are of limited assistance.
Subjective circumstances
13․Mr Kazmar-Hall is now 39 years of age, and was aged 38 years at the time of the offending.
14․He has a criminal history. The most concerning entry is for an offence of using a carriage service to threaten to kill. This offence occurred during the course of the noise complaints that were made, and involved threats directed towards a staff member of Housing ACT. A term of imprisonment was imposed. Mr Kazmar-Hall otherwise has committed offences in New South Wales in 2009. While there is no previous offending of a similar type, his criminal history is such that the availability of leniency as a result is limited.
15․The offender had a largely positive upbringing, although he has experienced challenging physical and health issues throughout his life. He is in receipt of NDIS support. He has previously engaged in employment, and has a bachelor’s degree, but in more recent years his health issues have prevented him from being employed. He has
pro-social networks and strong social ties in the community and currently has support from family members. He does not currently have a stable housing option, and has intentions to potentially move away from the ACT if he is unable to secure housing upon his release from custody.16․The report of Dr Furst provides that the offender has been diagnosed with
obsessive-compulsive disorder, being an anxiety disorder. Dr Furst opines that:It is likely that his underlying anxiety disorder, in the form of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and his rigid personality style contributed to his lack of tolerance to the noise of his neighbour and angry feelings that he developed. He was also facing eviction at the time, having nowhere else to live and no support from his family.
Accordingly, Mr Kazmar-Hall’s judgement was likely impaired by his anxiety disorder and the combined effects of his neighbour’s noise and frustrations about his inability to be transferred elsewhere or to stop his neighbour from making the perceived offensive noise.
17․Dr Furst’s opinion extends to a finding that the effects of Mr Kazmar-Hall’s health conditions would make a custodial sentence more onerous for him. The prosecution acknowledged that given the offender’s mental health at the time of the offending, in accordance with limb three of R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 (Verdins), general deterrence was appropriately moderated in the sentence to be imposed. I agree with this. I also consider that limb one of Verdins is of application, that is, that the offender’s condition reduces his moral culpability for the offending. This is particularly so given the duration of time that the offender tolerated the noise from his neighbour’s unit, which directly exacerbated his mental health conditions. Further, limb six, as to there being a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on his mental health, appears of relevance.
18․Dr Furst recommends ongoing psychological and psychotropic medication, both of which Mr Kazmar-Hall willingly engages with.
19․On sentence, Mr Kazmar-Hall took complete responsibility for the offending. He graciously disavowed any criticism of Housing ACT or other entities or individuals that he had engaged with over a number of years in an attempt to address the noise issue. He did though, understandably, seek that the Court have regard to his considerable efforts to address the issue in a manner other than by fire. I have had regard to the information adduced as to this at the trial, as well as to additional information contained in statements and statutory declarations produced on sentence by the offender. It is plain that Mr Kazmar-Hall attempted to resolve the issue without resorting to arson before he engaged in the offending conduct.
Time in custody
20․Mr Kazmar-Hall was remanded in custody from the time of arrest, on 9 April 2024. He has remained in custody since that time, a total of 476 days.
Consideration
21․As already observed, the offending was serious and recognition of the harm caused is warranted, but it was also offending committed in a circumstance of reduced moral culpability. It is offending that still warrants deterrence, denunciation, and accountability, with this to be fulfilled through the imposition of a term of imprisonment.
22․Mr Kazmar-Hall has spent a lengthy period in custody, a period longer than what current sentencing practice would suggest is warranted. While the other authorities do of course not dictate the bounds of the sentence I am to impose, it is apparent that no additional time in custody is appropriate.
23․As to the form in which Mr Kazmar-Hall ought be released from custody, there are no compelling reasons why supervision of any form is necessary. ACT Corrective Services find Mr Kazmar-Hall to have a low risk of general reoffending. Mr Kazmar-Hall, representing himself on sentence, expressed his regret for the offending, and plainly recognises the risks that he caused to others. Mr Kazmar-Hall does not present as posing further risks to the community, provided he can avoid a similar extenuating circumstance of the type that led to the offending here. I have every confidence that he will do so, and that he now well appreciates the need to summons even more patience than he already demonstrated if such a circumstance was to occur again.
Orders
24․For those reasons the following order is made:
(1)On the charge of arson (CAN 5133/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment to commence on 29 November 2024 and end on 28 July 2025.
| I certify that the preceding [24] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: 31 July 2025 |
0
6
1