Director of Public Prosecutions v Taylor

[2025] VCC 776

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-01629

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ZAC TAYLOR

---

JUDGE:	CHIEF JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 February, 11 April & 22 May 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Taylor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 776

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:Criminal law - sentence

Catchwords:              Guilty plea – arson – early guilty plea – offender, in company, set fire to the garage of two properties where persons present – planned and premeditated offending – offending motivated as an act of revenge on the part of the co-offender – offender not driving force behind offending but an active participant - mild acquired brain injury reducing moral culpability to a degree – aware of wrongfulness of actions - Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis contributing to vulnerability in prison setting – exceptional family hardship due to offender being the only means of support for elderly parents requiring medical care – role for mercy in sentence – general deterrence and denunciation principal sentencing considerations

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991

Cases Cited:Phillips v R; Liszczak v R [2017] VSCA 313; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105; R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291

Sentence:                  Two years, four months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year, four months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms V. Worrell	Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria
For the Accused	Ms E. George	Slink and Keating

HER HONOUR:

1Zac Taylor, on 25 February 2025, you pleaded guilty to two charges of arson contrary to s 197(1) and 197(6) of the Crimes Act 1958. As will be seen from what follows, the charges relate to the events that took place in the early hours of 16 June 2024. You were born in May 1989 and were 35 years of age at the time of this offending. You have admitted your prior criminal history.

2On the evening of 15 June 2024, you were in company with co-accused, Aaron Dejong, who was then in a relationship with Ms Ellen Jorre. Ms Jorre's former partner is one of the victims of your offending, 39-year-old Steven Cutajar, with whom she shares three children: a son aged 14, and two daughters aged 13 and eight years of age. At the time of the offending, Mr Cutajar had custody of the three children.

3At 12.18 am on 16 June 2024, Mr Cutajar was at home with the three children and his current partner, 37-year-old Suzanne Jennings.  The family, including the three children, were asleep inside the house.

4

Together with Mr Dejong you drove to the house, and having prepared a Molotov cocktail, set fire to the garage attached to the house. Mr Cutajar, Ms Jennings and the children woke to the garage engulfed in flames. The fire was contained by

Mr Cutajar, and firefighters then extinguished the fire after they arrived at 12.26 am.

5Later that morning, at 12.50 am, you drove with Mr Dejong to the home of Mr Cutajar's elderly parents where a second fire was lit. The couple also woke to flames coming from the front of their property near the garage door. The victims managed to push a burning jerry can away from the garage door, before firefighters arrived and extinguished the fire.

The offending

6It is necessary to consider the circumstances in which the two arson offences were committed in more detail.[1]

[1] Exhibit A – Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 21 February 2025

7On 29 April 2024, a custody dispute between Mr Cutajar and Ms Jorre was heard in the family law courts. Later that day, Mr Dejong sent you a text message saying, ‘FK ME!!! Pause on tonight cuz. I’ve just heard he putting (sic) the kids there cos of court today. FFKKKKRRR’.

8On 13 May 2024, Mr Dejong sent you a message stating, ‘Jobs a go again’.

9On 28 May 2024, Mr Dejong was served with a family violence intervention order that had been made for the protection of Mr Cutajar. Each of the three children were also named as protected persons under the intervention order.

10On 13 June 2024, you and Mr Dejong exchanged further text messages, in which Mr Dejong wrote to you stating, amongst other things ‘Big night coming up. Doing a 2 for 1 night'.  When you replied, 'What’s the go', Mr Dejong responded, 'I’ve just had enough. 1-night clean sweep. What time ya thinking? Late dinner then we roll say 11ish'.

11As noted earlier, you committed the offences with Mr Dejong on 16 June 2024.

Charge 1 – Arson at Harkness

12At approximately 10.34 pm on 15 June 2024, Mr Dejong left his residential address and drove to Point Cook where he met up with you. Mr Dejong then drove his mother's Subaru Impreza wagon to Harkness, which is in the northern area of Melton. Your arrival was captured on CCTV footage from neighbouring houses. The number plates to the car had been removed.

13

Mr Dejong parked on the nature strip in front of the house next door to Mr Cutajar's address in Harkness, arriving at 12.18 am.  The two of you then walked to the boot of the car, where you retrieved a jerry can and walked to

Mr Cutajar's house. You were wearing a white face mask, a black hooded jumper and black gloves.

14Mr Dejong walked down the driveway carrying the jerry can. You placed a green bottle, with a rag hanging from its neck, on the driveway. You then used a small bar to partially lift the roller door to the garage, and Mr Dejong placed the open funnel of the jerry can under the roller door.

15The two of you then walked to the street end of the driveway. At that point, Mr Dejong picked up the glass bottle, lit the rag and threw the Molotov cocktail at the roller door to the garage igniting the jerry can. Together, you then fled on foot to the parked Subaru and drove away from the area. The offending, and the acts of each of you, was captured by CCTV footage.

16The fire ignited the garage door of Mr Cutajar's residence. The double garage doors are attached to his single-story house. Mr Cutajar, Ms Jennings and the three children woke to the garage engulfed in flames. Mr Cutajar told Ms Jennings to grab the children and evacuate them from the house. She also called emergency services, while Mr Cutajar and a neighbour attempted to contain the fire using hoses before firefighters arrived at 12.26 am and extinguished the fire.

17The fire caused significant damage to the garage and to Mr Cutajar's car, a Ford Ranger, which was parked inside the garage at the time.

Charge 2 – Arson at Hoppers Crossing

18After driving away from the address in Harkness, the two of you drove to the home address of Mr Cutajar's elderly parents, Mary and Nazareno Cutajar, in Hoppers Crossing. You arrived at that address at 12.50 am. This was captured on a neighbour's CCTV camera.

19At that property, a second fire was lit using a yellow jerry can, which was placed at the front of the garage roller door. The garage to the property was attached to the residential house. No CCTV footage was located of the actual offending.

20Sixty-seven-year-old Mary Cutajar woke when the house alarm sounded, and saw flames at the front of their property near the garage door. Ms Cutajar alerted her husband, 76-year-old, Nazareno Cutajar. Together they ran to the front of the property and located the yellow jerry can on fire pushed up against the garage roller door. Nazareno Cutajar grabbed a hose and attempted to extinguish the fire. Mary Cutajar handed her husband a piece of wood which he used to push the jerry can away from the garage door. The fire was extinguished when firefighters arrived, and took over.

21The fire caused damage to the garage door and to Nazareno Cutajar's car, a Nissan Pulsar, which was parked inside the garage at the time.

Police investigation

22On 16 June 2024, the police attended the Harkness address together with an arson chemist, Ms Laura Noonan. Ms Noonan seized the fire damaged articles from the property, including a yellow melted plastic fuel container, a partly burnt yellow flexi-nozzle/spout and other burnt materials for analysis.

23The police, together with Ms Noonan, then attended the Cutajar's address in Hoppers Crossing and seized fire damaged articles, including a partly burnt yellow plastic fuel container, a plastic plug, broken green glass and other burnt material.

24Following her analysis, Ms Noonan concluded that both fires had probably been ignited indirectly, by a burning Molotov cocktail thrown at the garage doors, where petrol had been spread about the area.

25 June 2024 – arrest of the co-accused

25Mr Dejong was arrested on 25 June 2024 at his address in Point Cook and his mobile phone was seized. Analysis of the phone revealed the text messages you had exchanged with one another on 29 April 2024, 13 May 2024 and 13 June 2024.

26As part of their investigations, police obtained call charge records for your mobile phone, placing you in Melton North at 12:22 am and Truganina/Western Gardens between 12:56 am and 1.13 am on 16 June 2024. These records correspond with the timing and location of the arson attacks at Mr Cutajar's home in Harkness and Mr and Mrs Cutajar's home in Hoppers Crossing, respectively.

16 July 2024 – search warrant and arrest

27On 16 July 2024, a search warrant was executed at your residential address in Cockatoo. Seized during the search was a mobile phone and shoes, pants and a hoodie that matched those captured on CCTV on 16 June 2024. You were arrested and interviewed by police, during which you denied any recollection of your whereabouts on 16 June 2024, and denied recognising anyone in the footage obtained from the Harkness address.

28On 17 July 2024, a covert police operative was placed in prison cells with you, and recorded your conversation. During that conversation you admitted to participating in the two arson attacks with others, including a male called 'Aaron', stating that you were to be paid in 'assets' for your role. You said the restraining order made against one of the associates was the catalyst for the offending.

29As to the arson attacks, you said that the source of the accelerant was a modified jerry can that was akin to a Molotov cocktail-style set up, with a hose or something similar coming out. You said it was 'a complex design as it gets into all the gaps and desired areas to burn'. You said that the fires began in the shed area, and mentioned there was a person present at one of the properties.

30You were charged with this offending and have been remanded since 16 July 2024. A bail application made on your behalf on 29 August 2024 was refused.

Objective gravity of offence

31The objective gravity of the offence of arson is reflected in the maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. Arson is always a serious offence, irrespective of the actual damage actually caused. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Phillips v R; Liszczak v R:[2]

'the seriousness with which arson is to be gauged is dictated only partially by the extent of damage caused, or by the value of the property destroyed or damaged. The method by which the arson is accomplished also dictates the objective seriousness'.

[2]Phillips v R; Liszczak v R [2017] VSCA 313 at [62]

32In this case, there are a number of features that aggravate your offending.

33

Firstly, the offending was premeditated and planned. The two of you had

co-ordinated a time to meet and travel to the victims' addresses to commit the offending, having obtained all the materials required to execute the arson attacks. You had taken steps to avoid detection by wearing a mask to cover your face, and by travelling in a vehicle with its licence plates removed.

34Secondly, the method by which you ignited the fires included spreading petrol around the garage areas of each property, before placing a jerry can in front of the garage area and throwing a lit Molotov cocktail at the area, thus igniting the flames. As is apparent from the photographs, both garages were reasonably proximate to the residence of each property.

35Thirdly, extensive damage was caused by the fire to the garage and vehicle at the Harkness address, whilst approximately $4,700 worth of damage was done to the garage at the Hoppers Crossing address.

36Finally, and significantly, the offending occurred in the early hours of the morning to instil fear and to exact some form of revenge for Mr Cutajar having obtained a family violence intervention order for his protection and that of his children, against your co-offender, Mr Dejong.  I accept that Mr Dejong was the driving force behind the offending, however you were an active participant, certainly in the first arson attack. It is less clear what role you played in the second arson. Given both arsons were planned for the early hours of the morning, unsurprisingly all occupants were asleep when the garage areas were set alight, including three children and the elderly victims of the second arson.

37The offence of arson is one which carries significant dangers and risks, damaging property and potentially placing the lives of individuals, in harm's way. By its very nature, arson engenders fear and alarm in those who are potentially placed at risk, and undermines the victims' sense of security; as is borne out by the victim impact statements in this matter.

38For Steven Cutajar, your offending has had a profound emotional impact; eroding his sense of safety and that of his children, in their home and elsewhere.[3] When he awoke to the fire, Mr Cutajar states that he was 'scared, shocked and horrified that someone could do this'. Although Mr Cutajar is thankful that no one was injured, he states that the arson has left 'emotional and mental scars' that will endure for him and his children knowing they were targeted in this way. He says that he now feels overprotective of his children, ensuring he collects them safely from school, losing overtime pay as a result. He receives psychological counselling for the mental trauma he has suffered as a result of your offending and now plans to sell the house, where the family no longer feel safe.

[3] Exhibit D – Victim Impact Statement of Steven Cutajar dated 11 February 2025

39For Mary Cutajar, your offending has left her feeling angry, and anxious for her safety.[4] She states that when she saw the fire blazing, she was terrified that she would lose everything, including their home of 35 years. In addition to the financial impact of your offending, Mary Cutajar describes feeling traumatised by the arson attack and no longer feeling safe in her home.

[4] Exhibit F – Victim Impact Statement of Mary Cutajar dated 4 February 2025

40

Nazareno Cutajar states that as a 76-year-old, with a hearing impairment and

pre-existing heart issues, he found the events terrifying. He states that he feared losing his house, and as a result of the arson attack, has become withdrawn, struggling to leave the house and to fall asleep. He describes now feeling quick to anger and finds the thought someone would target his home in this way as unforgivable.

41This was clearly serious offending and the victim impact has been significant. Your moral culpability is also considerable, however this is also informed by your personal circumstances to which I now turn.

Personal circumstances

42

You were born in 1989 and raised by your parents in suburban Melbourne. Your father worked in rubbish collection and coached football until falling ill with

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma when you were in Years 6 and 7. This resulted in your mother reducing her hours of work to care for your father, and the family experienced strained financial circumstances at the time. You report that your father was a strict disciplinarian as you grew up, but that you were never subjected to abuse and enjoyed a reasonably stable childhood.

43You experienced learning difficulties at school from a young age, primarily struggling with concentration. You were diagnosed with autism, then known as Asperger's syndrome, when you were in primary school.  You report experiencing bullying at school and being subject to detentions for fighting.

44You attended Emerald Secondary College for Years 7 and 8. You were then expelled for arguing with teachers and peers. You attended a special development school for six months, before transferring to Box Hill TAFE to commence an automotive pre-apprenticeship course. You did not complete that apprenticeship, having found work in excavation. You subsequently held a number of short-term jobs in the excavation industry, plumbing, retail, landscaping and demolition work. You have previously been terminated from jobs due to difficulties with other staff.

45Your longest period of employment with one employer, working off and on, was for a period of eight years. More recently, in the last two years you have been employed as a full-time plant manager with Marchese Excavations and Bin Hire, which has provided you with more employment stability.

46You are presently single and have no children. You have had a number of relationships throughout your adult life, but your last relationship ended three months before going into custody. You have predominantly lived with your parents throughout your life, apart from brief periods living with friends or with partners.

47At the age of 17, you were involved in a serious motorcycle accident, resulting in loss of consciousness and hospitalisation, requiring surgery for injuries to your right shoulder and left femur. You also lost consciousness when you were involved in another motorcycle accident at the age of 27.

48Your previous criminal history, which dates from 8 December 2008, includes convictions for intentionally damaging property and reckless conduct endangering serious injury. You also have prior convictions for dishonesty offences, including theft, handling stolen goods, going equipped to steal and burglary, in addition to driving and violence offences, including recklessly causing injury, threats to kill, trespass and stalking.

49You also have priors for breaching community based orders in April 2010, and August 2011, breaching a suspended sentence that was wholly restored in December 2012, and contravening a community correction order in June 2017. More recently, you successfully completed a community correction order imposed in December 2018 for dangerous driving and were convicted and fined for offending in May and October 2019, the latter fine being imposed for the offence of stalking. All your prior convictions were dealt with in the Magistrates' Court.

50

You were assessed for the purposes of your plea by psychologist Ms Laura Flemming on 6 and 13 March 2025. In her report dated 25 March 2025,

Ms Flemming records that you received a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder ('ASD') in 2004 and 2013.[5] In 2013, clinical psychologist, Mr Steven Kent also diagnosed you with symptoms of an Antisocial Personality Disorder.[6]

[5] Exhibit 7 – Psychological report of Laura Flemming, Forensic Psychologist, dated 25 March 2025

[6] Exhibit 3 - Psychological assessment report of Steven Kent dated 10 June 2013

51Having conducted psychometric testing, Ms Flemming confirmed your previous diagnosis of ASD, and an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood – most likely related to your current status in custody - and expressed the opinion that you demonstrate symptoms of personality dysfunction in a number of areas. Ms Flemming was however, cautious in respect of this diagnosis, noting that your results were suggestive of potential over-reporting of symptoms, therefore requiring further assessment over a longer period.

52Ms Flemming noted that ASD can contribute to people misinterpreting others and problems in predicting or understanding the appropriateness of any action, due to inflexible thinking and a lack of awareness. However, Ms Flemming found no direct causal link between your ASD and this offending and is of the opinion you understood the wrongfulness of your conduct. Nonetheless, as context to your conduct, Ms Flemming expresses the opinion that your ASD may have contributed to you 'feeling stuck' and being unable to extract yourself from engaging in the offending due to deficits in your social and communication skills.

53

As to your role in the offending, you told Ms Flemming that you had meet

Mr Dejong 12 months earlier and had begun to spend time with his friendship group. You said you had consumed mixed spirits on the night. You told

Ms Flemming that you felt pressured to assist the co-accused, fearing you may be 'the next victim' if you refused. In Ms Flemming's assessment, you were reluctant to accept responsibility for your role, attributing all conduct to the co-accused, however she states this may be due in part to your 'concrete understanding of responsibility'. You denied any financial or other benefit for your role, however I note is contrary to the information you provided to the undercover police operative following your arrest.

54Based on Ms Flemming's recommendation, your plea hearing was adjourned for a neuropsychological assessment to be undertaken, by Dr Sami Yamin.[7] In her report dated 18 May 2025, Dr Yamin assessed you with a pre-morbid intellectual functioning as falling within a low average range, with a full scale IQ of 77, with notable deficits in verbal comprehension. Dr Yamin concludes that you have a moderate cognitive impairment that is likely attributable to a 'mild brain injury' sustained following the motorcycle collisions. She states that these deficits would have impaired your ability to exercise appropriate judgments and 'to make clear and rational choices' at the time of your offending.

[7] Exhibit 10 - Neuropsychological Report of Dr Sami Yamin dated 18 May 2025

Matters in mitigation

55Having addressed the objective gravity of your offending, I turn now to the matters that were raised on your behalf in mitigation of your sentence.

56First and foremost, you pleaded guilty to this offending and did so at a committal mention, early in the proceedings. Through your guilty plea you acknowledge responsibility for your offending and facilitate the course of justice. There is significant utility in an early guilty plea, as it saves the court and the community the time and resources associated with a trial, and significantly in a case such as this, saves the victims from the inevitable trauma of reliving these events through court proceedings.

57In addition to the remorse inherent in your guilty plea, you have expressed a developing level of insight into the gravity of your offending and its impact on others. When Ms Flemming assessed you in March 2025, you were reluctant to accept responsibility for your role in the arson attacks, attributing all blame to your co-offender. I accept that your ASD provides some explanation for this.

58However, further light is shone in that regard in a letter you wrote to the Court dated 8 April 2025.[8] You write to express your remorse, acknowledge the wrongfulness of your offending, and express regret for the fact your parents have to now bear the 'full brunt' of your actions. Whilst your letter still fails to acknowledge the terrifying ordeal experienced by the victims, I accept that it demonstrates a developing level of remorse and insight.

[8] Exhibit 8 – Letter of Apology written by Zac Taylor dated 8 April 2025.

59Secondly, in Dr Yamin's neuropsychological assessment of your cognitive impairments, which she describes as moderate, as a consequence of some mild brain damage arising from your involvement in earlier motorcycle collisions. Dr Yamin notes that such brain damage is associated with 'deficits in attention, inhibition and working memory', concluding that these would have 'influenced [your] behaviour by impairing your ability to exercise appropriate judgment and to make clear and rational choices'. Due to increased disinhibition resulting from your mild brain injury, Dr Yamin considers that you were more likely to act impulsively, without thinking about the consequences.

60Dr Yamin's expert opinion therefore draws a nexus, although concisely stated, between your moderate cognitive impairments and your propensity to act impulsively, and with increased disinhibition. In accordance with well-recognised principles enunciated by the High Court in the case of Muldrock[9],  your moral culpability is lessened as a result of your mild to moderate cognitive impairment, and you are entitled to have this fact recognised in moderation of your sentence.

[9]Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120

61However, in both Ms Flemming's and Dr Yamin's report, reference is also made to your level of intoxication on the night. You told Ms Yamin that your consumption of alcohol had increased, with periods of heavy drinking over the year prior to your arrest. The extent to which your consumption of alcohol - which is not a factor that operates in mitigation of sentence - also contributed to your impulsivity on the night is not addressed in Dr Yamin's report. It is therefore difficult to assess the extent to which your impaired cognitive functioning, or alcohol consumption, played the greater role in the offending. Nonetheless, I have regard to your moderate cognitive impairment in mitigation of your sentence.

62Thirdly, I accept that your experience of custody will be difficult for a number of reasons. As expressed by Ms Flemming, your ASD makes you vulnerable in a prison setting to misunderstandings, illustrated by your report of being assaulted in custody, and the risk Ms Flemming assesses of you easily mistaking and misinterpreting certain situations, thus enlivening limb 5 of the principles in Verdins[10] in further moderation of your sentence.

[10]        R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

63Moreover, during the hearing of your plea, your father, Mr Lynden Taylor gave evidence in which he described the difficulty your incarceration has posed for him and your mother due to their respective heath issues. Your 74-year-old mother, Johanna Brokke was diagnosed with breast cancer while you were in custody, and requires radiation treatment at Peter MacCallum hospital.[11] Your father, aged 81, continues to be monitored due to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and experiences recurring chest infections and has significant osteoarthritis, limiting his movement.[12] His treating doctor, in a letter dated 8 October 2024, states that your father requires help from his family members for his daily activities.

[11]Exhibit 1 - Letter of Dr Nazmul Hoque, Emerald Medical Centre, dated 4 February 2025.

[12]Exhibit 1 - Letter of Dr Nazmul Hoque, Emerald Medical Centre, dated 8 October 2024.

64Your father lives in Cockatoo and does not drive. Your mother is unable to drive to treatment and, in order to attend Peter McCallum hospital, she takes public transport, both a bus and then the train, which takes in excess of one hour each way. Your father describes his wife as extremely distressed as a result of her predicament.

65Your father, who received treatment in 2020 for his cancer, now requires regular blood checks every three months and is presently seeing a cardiologist for investigations. He also had an appointment in May 2025 with an orthopaedic surgeon for possible knee reconstruction surgery. Your father gave evidence of four occasions recently where he required an ambulance to attend the house due to his medical issues, on one occasion arriving three hours after being called. Your father says that despite the willingness of some friends to assist from time to time, he and your mother are reliant on you to assist them in their daily activities, and that you are their main source of support. Your father said they have no access to other comparable community supports. His evidence in that regard was not challenged.

66On your behalf, it is submitted that the circumstances confronting your elderly parents, particularly given your mother's recent cancer diagnosis and treatment, constitute exceptional family hardship warranting a reduction in your sentence. Whilst it is understood that the imprisonment of an offender will, inevitably, cause hardship to other family members, based on the evidence I heard, supported by the medical reports from their general practitioner, the situation your parents now find themselves in, without your daily support, is extremely onerous.

67I consider the situation confronting your parents to be considerably more severe than is usually the case where a son, with aging parents, is imprisoned. As the authorities explain, for a finding of exceptional hardship, the situation must be so significant, that 'it would be, in effect, inhuman to refuse to [take the hardship into account]’.[13] In my view, the extreme hardship confronting your elderly parents, without your support, necessitates a measure of mercy in your sentence.

[13]Markovic v The Queen [2010] VSCA 105; R v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291 at [296]

68You have also been diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood which Ms Flemming assesses as being caused by your concern at being unable to support your parents whilst in custody.[14] This is an added dimension to the difficulty you are likely to experience in custody.

[14] Report of Dr Flemming at [123]

69Finally, I turn to assess your prospects of rehabilitation. There are a number of positive indicators for your future. You are highly regarded by your current employer, Marchese Excavations & Bin Hire, the director of which has written a reference on your behalf in which she speaks highly of your work ethic and reliability, and confirms that your position as General Manager remains open for you to return.[15] You have also taken the opportunities available to you in custody to undertake multiple courses and programs, to promote your rehabilitation.[16]

[15] Exhibit 11 - Character Reference of Paulene Marchese, Director of Marchese Excavations & Bin Hire Ltd dated 15 April 2025

[16] Bundle of Certificates of Courses completed in custody

70You have the ongoing support of your parents, and stable accommodation available to you. Friends who have known you a long time, and have provided references on your behalf, speak of you as a reliable and loyal friend, and a hard worker.[17]

[17] Exhibit 8 - Character Reference of Dean Filiponi dated 14 April 2025 and Exhibit 12 - Character Reference of Dylan Crowl dated 6 April 2025

71I also accept that this time in custody, your longest to date, will have a salutary effect on you.

72Balanced against these factors I also have regard to your prior criminal convictions, whilst noting there was a considerable period between your more serious offending, and this incident. That said, your involvement in this offending also represents a significant escalation in your criminal behaviour. I also have regard to Ms Flemming's assessment that you pose a moderate-high risk of recidivism, although I accept that this risk may be moderated with treatment to improve the deficits arising from your diagnosed ASD and management of your alcohol use.

73In my view, although these matters elevate my concerns for your future, on balance I assess that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

Other sentencing considerations

74As a measure of the seriousness of this type of offending, where you are to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the first arson offence, you are then to be sentenced as a serious arson offender on Charge 2.[18] The Court must regard protection of the community as the principal sentencing purpose in relation to Charge 2 pursuant to s 6D of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’). I also have regard to the maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment for this offence.

[18] s 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991

75In addition, pursuant to s 6E of the Act, any term of imprisonment imposed by the Court on Charge 2, must, unless otherwise directed, be served cumulatively upon the term of imprisonment imposed on Charge 1.  This provision must be given legislative effect, although the sentencing principle of totality also has a role to play, particularly noting the two events occurred on the one night, within 40 minutes of one another. Appropriate cumulation is also warranted to reflect the impact of the offending on the different victims.

76In sentencing you for this offence, the sentence I impose must operate to deter others from playing any role in offending that involves deliberately lighting fires at residential premises, intending to instil fear in the occupants. Given the nature of this offending and your prior history, there is an ongoing need for the sentence to specifically deter you. Community protection is also an important sentencing consideration, particularly having regard to s 6E of the Act.

77Finally, I have had regard to the decisions to which I was referred by the prosecution as indicative of the range of sentences imposed in comparable cases, however as always every case must turn on its own facts and circumstances.

78In sentencing submissions made on your behalf, your counsel acknowledged the gravity of the offending warrants a term of imprisonment. However, given the power conferred on the court by s 44(1A) of the Sentencing Act 1991 when sentencing for the offence of arson, it was submitted that a combination sentence of imprisonment and a community correction order would be appropriate to meet all relevant sentencing considerations, as well as promoting your future rehabilitation. In contrast, the prosecution submitted that a sentence of immediate imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed was necessary to reflect the objective gravity of this offending.

79This is not an easy sentencing task. The offending was undoubtedly serious. The impact on each of the victims has been profound. You are to be sentenced as a serious arson offender on Charge 2, for which the protection of the community is the principal sentencing purpose and in respect of which there is a presumption of cumulation.

80Against these factors, you entered an early guilty plea, your moral culpability is lessened by reason of your acquired brain injury. You were not the driving force in this offending. The exceptional hardship experienced by your elderly parents by reason of your imprisonment warrants some degree of mercy. I also accept that your time in custody is more difficult than it is for others, due to your concern for your parents' well-being, and by reason of your long-standing ASD.

81Ultimately, I consider that the gravity of your offending and past non-compliance with community based dispositions means that I am unable to accept the submission made on your behalf. However, the various matters in mitigation to which I have referred must be given some prominence in the sentencing synthesis, both in the head sentence and in fixing an appropriate non-parole period.

Sentence

82Balancing the matters to which I have referred, whilst having regard to the maximum penalty for the offence of arson, you are sentenced as follows:

83On Charge 1 – arson – you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

84On Charge 2 – arson – you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment. In respect of this offence, you are sentenced as a serious arson offender, and I direct that this fact be entered into the record of the court.

85Having regard to s 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991, I order that eight months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1.

86This gives a total effective sentence of two years, four months' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of one year, four months' imprisonment.

87Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare 331 days of presentence detention to be reckoned as served under the sentence I have imposed.

88Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of three years, six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, six months.

- - -