Director of Public Prosecutions v Pierce (a pseudonym)

[2018] VCC 339

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JEFFREY PIERCE (a pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAMPEL
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:	20 March 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 March 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Pierce (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VCC 339

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D. Cordy	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Offender	Ms M. O'Brien	Stary, Norton and Halphen Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR: 

1Jeffrey Pierce,[1] you have pleaded guilty to one rolled up charge of arson covering the period from 8 October 2016 to 8 November 2016 and one of contravening a family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety.

[1] Jeffrey Pierce is a pseudonym.

2You have also, yesterday in the course of the plea hearing, facilitated the uplifting of a summary charge of contravening a final family violence intervention order in circumstances where you knew that the affected person would read a message sent to your daughter with contents that were emotionally and economically abusive in their meaning towards the affected family member.  Having facilitated the uplifting of that charge, you also pleaded guilty to it.

3The circumstances of these:  For 15 years, you have been in a relationship with Renee Craig[2] and for the four years before the offending, you had been married to her.  Shortly after you and Ms Craig married, or within the year of your marriage, a child was born to the two of you; a daughter, Jessica.[3]  At the time of the offending, she was three.

[2] Renee Craig is a pseudonym.

[3] Jessica is a pseudonym

4You and Ms Craig lived in a house that had been purchased in 2011 in the Hamilton area.  It was registered in Ms Craig's name as the sole proprietor.  It would appear that you had or at least you believed you had some equity in the property and whilst the marriage continued and whilst the relationship continued, you, Ms Craig and the child Jessica had lived together in the property.

5It would appear in about mid-2016, Ms Craig and Jessica left the family home and ultimately ended up living with Ms Craig's parents nearby in Hamilton.  You remained in the property and it was in circumstances that indicate that there was a level of tension, if not acrimony, between you and Ms Craig.

6I am told that from her perspective, the relationship was over by the time or at the time that you left the family home.  It is unclear on the materials before me whether you understood that she was saying that or whether you still had a belief that it was continuing or might resume.

7In any event, by mid-October or early October of 2016, you had been living apart for some months and she at least had been saying the relationship was over.  It is also clear on the material that in the months leading up to the offending, that you had been drinking at a very high level and that your behaviour had been as a result, not only alcohol impaired but also angry and aggressive.

8In early November 2016, you acknowledged to a friend of yours that you had burnt some of Ms Craig's personal effects, clothing and other items of value to her.  Ms Craig had at some time during October of 2016 noticed that some of her personal possession had been removed from where they had been in the house and it would appear that some of those at least had been set fire to by you.

9It is that destruction of some personal items of Ms Craig's that leads to the first part of the rolled-up charge of arson to which you have pleaded guilty.

10On 27 October 2016, Ms Craig went to the property in order to feed the animals that were still housed there.  That apparently was something that she had been doing regularly since she had moved out.  You were present at the property. 

11You locked her out of the house and verbally abused her.  She let herself back into the house and discovered that you had placed the child's high chair on the wood heater.  It was therefore at risk of being burnt.

12You removed your clothing and told Ms Craig that she could take everything, including the clothes off your back.  She removed the high chair from the wood heater.  You verbally abused her while standing naked in front of her and then urinated on her. 

13You told her that you were going to burn the house down.  She left the house but came back shortly after that and saw that your beanie was attached to the flue of the wood heater.  When she warned you of the consequences of leaving the beanie on the flue, you said "I don't care, I don't give a fuck, let it burn".  Ms Craig left the property again.

14Later that day, at about 8.30 at night, you called Ms Craig, told her that you were destroying property at the house and you were threatening self-harm. 
You had in the months before that engaged in a pattern of behaviour of becoming drunk and threatening self-harm.  There had been occasions before this where police or emergency services had had to be called, to restrain you and take you to hospital.

15In any event on this day, 27 October, as a result of the call you made to
Ms Craig, she called police and they attended the property.  You were heavily intoxicated.  You left the house and banged your arm against a fence and a veranda, obviously trying to inflict some injury upon yourself. 

16You were taken to Hamilton Hospital for assessment.  Police needed to accompany the paramedics because of your high level of aggression.  You had to be restrained by police at the hospital until they were able to sedate you.  You were held overnight but released the next day.

17The day after that, as a result of your behaviour on 27 October and a pattern of past concerning behaviour, Ms Craig sought and obtained an interim family violence intervention order on behalf of herself and the child Jessica.

18You were prohibited, as a result of that, from intentionally damaging property belonging to her or threatening to do so; attempting to locate or follow her or Jessica or keeping them under surveillance; contacting or communicating with either of them; approaching or remaining within five meters of them or attending within 200 metres of their home.

19That order was served you at 11.30 pm on 29 October; that is the day that it was obtained. 

20Within days of the obtaining of that order and service of it, on 7 November 2016, you spoke to Ms Craig's father when he went to the property to feed the animals. 

21You told him that you were upset about the family violence order.  You asserted that you had been fined a number of times for breaching it and you said to

[4] Mr Craig is a pseudonym.

Mr Craig[4] that if his daughter wanted to fight dirty that you would fight dirty also.

22The following night, you approached your next door neighbour and gave him a number of personal and valuable items of yours.  They included your passport, a ring, your wedding ring, your marriage certificate and wedding vows, the birth certificates of yourself, Ms Craig and Jessica and various other items which were of obvious use to you.

23Those items had, until the night of 8 November, been kept in a safe in the main bedroom of the property.  When you gave the items to your neighbour, Mr Cox, you said to him a number of times "We've not seen each other".  In other words indicating that although you were giving him those items that you wanted to deny that you had done so or that he had seen you on that night.

24Very shortly after you handed those items to Mr Cox, you set the house alight.  You poured petrol in the lounge and living area of the property and ignited it.  The house went up and was substantially destroyed as a result of the fire.

25The lighting of that fire is the second part of the charge of arson to which you have pleaded guilty.  Also by deliberately destroying property of
Ms Craig's, that constitutes the breach of the family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety.

26When police and emergency services attended to deal with the fire, you asserted that hot fat had gone up on the stove after you had inadvertently left a pot there and gone to sleep.  Although when you were first seen your clothes were clearly undamaged by fire, you took them off and threw them into the fire.  You later told police and emergency workers that when the oil went up on the stove you were blown out of the door, and your clothing had been burnt. 
That was clearly a lying account.

27Police did notice that although you were naked but for your underwear by the time they arrived, you managed to keep your wallet with you.  You told the police that you just grabbed some stuff on the way out. 

28You had a minor superficial burn to your arm which was treated at the scene. You were later taken to the Hamilton Hospital.

29The fire was a significant one.  It took three and a half hours for the fire to be controlled.  Additional destruction of the house had to occur in order to try and fight and contain the fire.  It continued to burn for some time, requiring three subsequent re-attendances by the CFA to put out fires which had re-ignited.

30It did not take long for investigators to see that the fire had been deliberately lit with petrol and to see where the seat of fire was from the accelerant that you had spread.

31When you were assessed at the Hamilton Hospital, you were obviously impaired by alcohol.  You were blood or breath tested about six hours after the fire took hold.  You told the people at the hospital that it was some five hours before that that you had your last drink - whether that is so or whether you had been drinking up until the time of the fire really matters little.  What is significant is that you had a blood alcohol reading of over 0.10 at the time of testing which on a read back to the time of the fire would mean that you had a blood alcohol reading about 0.20 at that time. 

32You showed other signs of being significantly impaired by alcohol when you were assessed at the hospital.  You were seen to be inappropriately smiling and laughing when discussing life stressors, but you denied any thoughts of self-harm.  There were no voice delusions, hallucinations or overvalued ideas.  Your speech was not spontaneous, you were generally providing only single word responses.

33You told the hospital that you had been drinking approximately 20 standard drinks a day in the lead-up to the fire and that you had had ten drinks on the day of the fire.  It is hard to know how accurate that is.

34You were interviewed upon your discharge from hospital two days later, and made a no comment interview.  You were charged and remanded in custody where you have remained ever since. 

35In December 2016, the interim order was replaced by a permanent or a final family violence intervention order and you were served with that whilst you were in custody.  The order, although prohibiting communication with Ms Craig save for communication through lawyers in relation to family law matters, did permit you to correspond with your daughter provided that in the terms of the correspondence, you did not breach any of the terms of the order.  That meant you could not communicate directly or indirectly with Ms Craig or threaten her with emotional or economic harm.

36In breach of that family violence intervention order, you sent the child, Jessica, a card from prison on 11 July 2017.  Whilst the first paragraph of that was clearly a communication with your daughter, not in breach of the contravention order, the second paragraph was in these terms:

"I wanted to also let you know that I spoke to your Mum's lawyer, that no negotiations will be made until the intervention order (IVO) is removed or lapsed.  I believe this is best for all parties involved as you are the most important person in my life".

Jessica was, it must be pointed out, only three at the time.

37It is that communication that gives rise to the uplifted summary offence to which you have pleaded guilty. 

38The context of that communication is that you had placed a caveat on the property which had prevented its sale and the distribution of the proceeds between you and Ms Craig.  You had refused to remove the caveat communicating through her lawyers - or your lawyers to her lawyers as well as in this communication to your daughter that the removal or lapsing of the intervention order was a pre- condition to any negotiations in relation to sale of the property.

39That means that the property was and remains unliveable because of the destruction by fire and unsellable because of the existence of the caveat.  That has clearly caused additional hardship not only to your wife but to your daughter.

40Arson in the circumstances to which you have pleaded guilty is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years.  The contravention of the intervention order, the indictable charge, intending to cause harm or fear for safety carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and the contravention in the uplifted summary charges is punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment.

41These are clearly serious charges and the nature and circumstances of them make it clear that the paramount sentencing considerations, subject to matters personal to you, are denunciation, deterrence both general and specific, and just punishment.

42Victim impact statements have been filed not only by your wife Ms Craig but also by her parents who have been themselves affected by your conduct in relation to these offences because of the impact on their daughter and their granddaughter.

43Ms Craig speaks of the impact, the emotional and psychological effect as well as the financial effect of the destruction of the house and its contents.  And not only the impact on her – in what I consider to be a most understated way she refers to “situational depression and anxiety” – but of significant regressions in your daughter's behaviour as a result of your conduct.  The child herself has had to see a counsellor in order to assist her to come to terms with the destruction of the house and the remand of her father in custody as a result of his deliberate acts in destroying the property.

44She speaks, understandably, of a fear of you, of what you might do to her upon your release, given the fact that you so blatantly flouted the intervention order that had been imposed for her safety.

45Ms Craig's parents speak as one would expect parents to speak seeing the suffering of their daughter and granddaughter.  It is not surprising that they feel the way do and that they wrote the way they did of the impact of your offending on them.

46The arson is particularly appalling and amoral conduct.  It was spiteful, vengeful, destructive and cruel.  By your conduct, you deliberately caused significant emotional and economic harm to Ms Craig.  She was the person with whom you had been in an intimate relationship for over 15 years.

47As you well knew, the house contained many of her personal possessions as well as yours and items that had been jointly acquired.  The house was, until Ms Craig had moved out some months before these events, the only home your daughter knew.  By your conduct you destroyed that.

48You express great devotion to your daughter.  She was only three at the time. She is now four.  You were assessed by the psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins.  You told him, and you expressed great distress to him about the fact that you had not seen your daughter since this had happened.  You expressed animosity towards her mother for what you perceived to be her role in restricting or limiting or denying you contact with her.

49And yet it is your wilful, deliberate and spiteful conduct in destroying the house and its contents that has been the cause of your removal from your daughter's sphere.  It is by your conduct you have deliberately caused your daughter the inevitable financial hardship which flows from a combination of your incarceration and consequent inability therefore to contribute to her financial support,  and the diminution in the value of the property as a result of the fire.  By your conduct, you have deprived your daughter of the benefit of any equity that you as well as Ms Craig had in the house and its contents.

50It is therefore, in my view, a very serious case of arson and the motivation for it particularly appalling. 

51The breach of the intervention order – the indictable charge – I also regard as a very serious offence of its type.  The subsequent breach of the final intervention order – the uplifted summary offence – demonstrates not only a continued preparedness, even when in custody, to flout court orders but it shows disturbingly that even after the fire, even after your remand in custody, that you continued to harbour angry and vindictive views towards Ms Craig and that you were prepared to use the ruse of a letter to your daughter, a highly cruel and manipulative thing to do, to cause Ms Craig emotional and economic distress.

52You must understand this and this is why deterrence, denunciation and just punishment loom so large in the sentencing mix.  It is unacceptable to act as you did to a woman with whom you had shared so many years of life, and with whom you had fathered a child during the relationship, to deliberately destroy her property as a means of vengeance.

53Relationships do come to an end.  People do have to, as a result, divide up their property and sell the houses they have lived in.  But you cannot, nobody can treat a person with whom they have shared an intimate relationship as someone they could control or cause harm to if they do not do as they want.  You and others like you must understand that in acting in that way, or that if you act in that way, you will be condemned and punished.

54The nature and the gravity of the crimes are significant and I consider your moral culpability to be very high.  There is a clear need to impose a sentence that serves to deter those who, like you, deliberately destroy the former matrimonial home and its contents out of spite, and cause financial harm and emotional harm to their former partner.  There is a need also to impose a sentence that deters other who, like you, deliberately flout orders made by courts to protect an intimate partner or former intimate partner after real and serious threats have been made to their personal, emotional and economic safety.

55What then are the circumstances personal to you that temper the weight to be given to those sentencing considerations?

56You are 41 years of age, so a man of mature years.  You are the youngest of three children of hard working parents.  You grew up on a property in Cranbourne and you described an idyllic childhood, one which was untroubled by deprivation or disadvantage. 

57Although you left school young, you apparently not being a very good student, there is nothing to suggest that you are of below average intelligence. 
Whilst what little I have seen of your written communication indicates that your spelling and grammar are not exemplary, it is clear that you are able to express yourself verbally and in writing perfectly adequately and consistently with a person of average intelligence but perhaps limited secondary education. 

58Despite your early school leaving, you have not had any trouble obtaining and maintaining employment and you have a good and long history of employment. 

59Having left school early, you went straight to work starting in panel beating and staying in the area of panel beating and motor wrecking for some years. 
You then moved to agricultural work, working for a long period on chicken farms.  In the last ten years or so, it would appear you have worked as a professional truck driver.

60So have got not only a demonstrated capacity to work and to support yourself and to support others, you have shown consistency in your approach to work and a capacity to move to different fields of employment and to maintain employment in a new and chosen field when you wish to do so. 

61You maintain a close relationship with your parents who have supported you throughout these proceedings.  They continue to have contact with you and visit you whilst you have been in custody.  And they have made the trip from Cranbourne to Warrnambool for your court appearances including yesterday and today.

62You have, it would appear, a civil relationship with your two siblings. How close it has been or is now with each of them is a little uncertain but it is clear that you are not alienated from them and that they are available to you and you to them as and when needed.

63You report a long history of alcohol abuse.  You told Mr Cummins the psychologist who as I have already noted assessed you for the purpose of a plea that you had started drinking at 18 and that you had been a heavy drinker for at least the ten years or so before this offending behaviour.

64You reported drinking sometimes as much as five or six large bottles of spirits a week.  There is other evidence to suggest that you had a long term drinking problem apart from your self-report.  It is somewhat concerning that with the level of consumption that you report over the last years that you were at the same time working as a professional truck driver.

65According to your criminal history, in December 2005 you were charged with what was either a high level exceed prescribed content of alcohol or a second or subsequent offence. 

66I say that because your driver's licence was cancelled for a period of two years and I was told in the course of the plea and you told Mr Cummins this that you had been caught drink driving only weeks before the offending that brings you before me.  As a result your licence was immediately suspended and you lost your truck driving job.

67You told Mr Cummins that you had previously done drink driving courses and it would appear from the way that is reported that that was a result of a requirement that you do so before becoming relicensed.  Whether that was in relation to the 2005 offence that you were dealt with for in 2006, or other offences is not clear.

68If you have other traffic offences, they were not on your previous convictions and they are clearly only relevant in so far as they might indicate a problem with alcohol abuse.  Your history of drink-driving offences, I want to make clear,
I consider relevant only insofar as it relates to support for your history of alcohol abuse.

69Of more concern are your other previous convictions.  On two separate occasions in 2003 and 2004, you were before a court for charges of wilful damage to property.  I was told that on each occasion, they related to your deliberate destruction of property following an argument with your then girlfriend (not Ms Craig).

70There is a third and more recent court appearance in 2009, again for deliberate damage to property.  You told Ms O'Brien that you could not remember the details of that, save that you recall deliberately driving into or over street traffic signals in anger.  You professed not to recall the reason on that occasion for your anger.

71For that, you received a term of imprisonment which was suspended together with a six month licence suspension for a related charge of careless driving and failing to report a collision in which property was damaged to police, therefore in circumstances where the owner must not have been present.

72So it is clear on the materials relating to this offending and from what I have just recounted of the previous offending that you must have a serious problem with alcohol and that, when intoxicated, you have angry outbursts.  It is also clear on that criminal history and on the offences before me that you manifest all the signs of a serious problem with respect for women with whom you have a relationship.

73You have an established pattern of destroying property when angry with a woman with whom you are in a relationship and that would be appear to be particularly so or compounded by being impaired by alcohol.

74On the materials before me, you show no insight into this and in my view, it is a serious matter which not only warrants condemnation and denunciation and being weighted when considering general and specific deterrence, and just punishment, but it is also relevant to an assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation. 

75Consistently with what you told Mr Cummins, you instructed your counsel that you had a long history of alcohol abuse and in the months leading up to this offending had been admitted to local hospitals on a number of occasions following threats of property damage, violence to others or self-harm when intoxicated.

76The medical material in the hand-up brief indicates or supports that.  It is clear you have failed to avail yourself of any of the opportunities offered to you as a result of your recent hospitalisations to address your alcohol consumption or your anger, whether independent of or exacerbated by alcohol.

77As a result of what you told Mr Cummins at assessment, he concluded that at the time of the offending, you were alcohol dependent and in a state of acute stress.  Mr Cummins opined that the stress was triggered by the fact that
Ms Craig had left you just days earlier, that you had just learned that she was cheating on you and that you had recently been rearrested for drink driving and lost your job.

78Mr Cummins also noted that you were or have reported at the time to be intermittently engaging in suicidal thinking.  Apart from the finding that you are likely at the time of the offending to satisfy the criteria for alcohol use disorder, moderate in severity, as Mr Cummins said (referring to an old edition of DSM, DSM III, under the diagnostic criteria there), there is no support for his other conclusions. 

79On the agreed facts on the plea, Ms Craig had left the matrimonial home with your daughter some months earlier.  She had been unsuccessful in her attempts to have you leave the home so she and your daughter could remain in occupation of it.  The financial stress caused by maintaining the mortgage on the property (the responsibility for which appeared to be varied largely by her) and rental on her alternative property for herself and your daughter had led her ultimately to return to live with her parents some months earlier.

80At its very highest on your behalf it could be put that you had not, until some days before the final fire, accepted the relationship was over.  On the material before me, Ms Craig had told you not only was the relationship over but it would appear that not long before the fire, she told you she had moved on and was dating another person.

81It is this that you apparently described as “cheating” when you spoke to
Mr Cummins.  Although the materials indicate that you had at times, when impaired by alcohol, threatened self-harm, there is no evidence before me to suggest any suicidal ideation and you had denied specifically that to friends and to hospitals on admissions.

82Your threats of self-harm appear to be more related to your extreme intoxication and anger at not getting your own way.  In any event, neither your alcohol abuse nor any distress you may have felt over the failed relationship, nor any perception that Ms Craig was “cheating” on you as you characterised it is in any way a mitigator for the offending.

83In my view, having regard to the previous threats that you had made to burn the property, the admissions made by you of destruction by fire of personal property of Ms Craig previously and the vengeful anger that you expressed towards her following the taking out of the intervention order, the inescapable conclusion is that you deliberately lit this fire to destroy the property and cause emotional and economic harm to Ms Craig.

84I am satisfied that it was a considered, rational decision and that is borne out by your conduct in providing your personal papers and personal items of sentimental value to you to your neighbour immediately before setting the fire and instructing him not to say he had seen you.

85As discussed extensively with Ms O'Brien in the course of her plea, there is no evidentiary support for any psychiatric or psychological condition which would bring into play any of the limbs of Verdins.  Self-induced intoxication or alcohol use disorder is no excuse for the behaviour and does not enliven Verdins.  Despite the passing reference in Mr Cummins report to depression, there is no formal clinical diagnosis of depression upon which any reliance could be based.

86What then are the other matters counting your favour?  You are, as I have noted, apparently of at least average intelligence and despite what appears to be a long history of alcohol abuse, you have a very good history of regular employment.  You have and continue to enjoy the support of your parents.

87I am told that it is your plan, and theirs, that upon your ultimate release from custody, that you will have a welcoming home for you at their property in Cranbourne.  You have family support therefore and stable accommodation awaiting you as well as good prospects of continued employment on your release.

88I take into account also your pleas of guilty to the charges on the indictment and the fact that you did so at a relatively early stage.  That is, at the commencement of what was otherwise to be a contested committal and before Ms Craig or any other witnesses were required to give evidence.

89She has therefore been spared having to relive the events that gave rise to these charges and being cross-examined about them.  As I indicated to Ms O'Brien, you are entitled to the full benefit of the utilitarian value of the plea and its benefits in advancing the interests of justice.  The relatively early stage at which the pleas were entered also clearly counts in your favour.

90You are also entitled to a significant reduction in the sentence otherwise available for the uplifted summary offences that was languishing in the Magistrates' Court waiting list for contest mentions.  In fact it became clear as yesterday's plea developed that the contest mention for that and related charges was due to be held at Hamilton today.

91It was in the course of yesterday's plea, and following a suggestion by Mr Cordy the prosecutor that you then, with the assistance of your counsel, considered your position in relation to that and ultimately consented to the removal of that charge from the Magistrates' Court and the uplifting of it here so it could be dealt with by a guilty plea straight away. 

92That means it gives you finality.  Those matters are over and behind you but it also clearly has utilitarian, advancing the interest of justice benefits.  You acknowledge your breach of the intervention order by doing so.

93You not only indicated your intention to plead guilty but you positively engaged in conduct to facilitate bringing it before this court promptly.  In those circumstances, I treat as a guilty plea entered at the earliest possible stage and give you full benefit for that.

94As indicted in discussions with Ms O'Brien yesterday, I do not consider that your guilty pleas are of themselves evidence of remorse.  Whilst as I said in the course of discussion, you cannot and will not be punished for absence of remorse, I am satisfied that there is no evidence to indicate that you are remorseful for your conduct.  Indeed, if anything, there is positive evidence to the contrary.  However, that is not an aggravating feature and it is not taken into account in any way adverse to your interests.

95Absence of remorse is, in my view, only relevant to the absence of a feature that otherwise might have countered towards a more favourable assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation or to further reduce the weight to be given to specific deterrence.

96Coming back then to the matters counting in your favour in terms of your prospects for rehabilitation and mitigating against the other sentencing factors that have to be weighted, whilst in custody you have participated in a significant number of courses, many related to behavioural management as well as two drug and alcohol awareness courses and a number of vocational courses.  You have been subjected to random drug and alcohol testing on seven occasions in the last 12 months and you have returned clean screens on every occasion.  Although you have not reported in the past a history of abusing substances other than alcohol, I take into account in your favour that whilst in custody you have not succumbed to the temptation to avail yourself of substances that are available, far too easily available unfortunately, and used them as substitutes for alcohol.

97You have shown yourself therefore by participation in the courses and by the clean screens prepared to accept that you must make best use of the time that you have already spent in prison and that you acknowledge through your counsel you will have to spend in prison after this.

98You have taken positive steps to use your time well and to equip yourself with skills to cope better on the inside, hopefully to help you cope better on the outside and also to improve your vocational employment skills.

99However, it appears you show at this stage no insight into your alcohol abuse and none into the correlation between the alcohol abuse and your anger directed towards Ms Craig.

100Although you indicated through your counsel you would be prepared to engage in courses in anger management or respectful relationships if directed to do so, it is of note that you have taken no steps to do so to date.  I see no sign of a preparedness or a commitment to do so.

101Such courses are available to you if you choose to avail yourself of them but it is up to you.  I do, however, strongly urge the Corrections authorities, both whilst you are in custody in preparation for parole and, if are you granted parole, on your release on parole to make available to you such courses as are available in relation to alcohol abuse, to anger management and to respectful relationships with intimate partners.  In my view, you and the community will benefit if such courses are available to you and you participate in them.

102As was acknowledged by Ms O'Brien in her careful plea, the nature and gravity of this offending requires a substantial term of imprisonment, one in excess of the considerable time that you have already spent on remand.  Ms O'Brien submitted that a term of imprisonment followed by release on a community corrections order was appropriate.

103Arson offences do permit the imposition of a lengthy term of imprisonment followed by a community corrections order.  That is something that is not available for most offences but I do not consider you to be a suitable candidate or this to be a suitable case for the imposition of a combination sentence.

104In coming to that conclusion, I take into account the fact that there is no evidence of any psychiatric or psychological disorder or condition which would likely make you a continuing danger to the public or a continuing danger of fire setting upon your release, conditions that would justify the supervisory nature of a CCO long past a term imprisonment.

105Nor do you suffer from an intellectual disability which make you an at-risk repeat offender and which would warrant for your own welfare or the protection of the community, release upon such an order. 

106As I have already indicated, I consider that no term other than one of imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed is appropriate and as the orders I am about to pronounce now make clear, it is my view that there should be some cumulation - not complete but some cumulation between the sentences on all charges.

107Whilst there is some overlap between the second part of the arson charge and the indictable breach of the intervention order charge, they are separate offending and your conduct in deliberately flouting a court order and in the way you did must warrant separate punishment.

108I have sought, though, in the orders that I have fixed upon to avoid double punishment.  The subsequent charge clearly requires some cumulation as well. 

109In fixing the total effective sentence and the non-parole period, it is my fervent hope that you will engage in such programs are as available to you so as to maximise your prospect of release upon parole and the supervision that parole can offer you.

110It is entirely up to you though, Mr Pierce, whether you engage in such courses and whether you take the necessary steps to address your alcohol abuse, your problems with anger and your problems with respectful relationships with women.

111It is my view that if you are to be granted parole, you should have the benefit and assistance of strict supervision and access to courses in relation to those matters so as to maximise your prospect for a proper rehabilitation and a proper reintegration, offence free reintegration into the community.

112Could you now please stand.

113On the two indictable charges and the uplifted summary charge to which you pleaded guilty, you are convicted.

114On Charge 1 of arson, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of five years.

115On Charge 2 of breach of the intervention order, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 18 months.

116On Charge 3 of breach of the summary - the uplifted summary offence, breach of the intervention order, you are sentenced to imprisoned for a period of six months.

117Six months of the sentence on Charge 2 and three months of the sentence on Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence, Charge 1.  That makes a total effective sentence of five years and nine months.

118I fix the period of four years and three months as the time that you must serve before being eligible for parole.  I declare that you have spent 495 days in
pre-sentence detention and direct that that be counted and reckoned as part of the sentence already served.

119I make the forensic sample order sought.  I must warn you, having made that forensic sample order, that I am making it by way of provision of buccal sample, buccal swab.  That means you must rub a swab like a cotton bud on the inside of your mouth until a sufficient sample has been obtained and if you do not cooperate with the authorities in the provision of that sample, they are authorised to use reasonable force to obtain it and may well use the more invasive form of taking a sample namely a blood test.  Do you understand that?

120I declare pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act that but for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of seven years and six months and I would have fixed the period of six years as the time that you would have had to have served before being eligible for parole.

121Are there any further orders that are required to be made?

122MR CORDY:  No, Your Honour.

123MS O'BRIEN:  No, Your Honour.

124HER HONOUR:  Or arithmetic correct?  Arithmetic correct?

125MR CORDY:  Yes, Your Honour.

126HER HONOUR:  Thank you, can you remove Mr Pierce please?  Thank you, I will stand down briefly. 

‑ ‑ ‑