R v Ezekiel (No 2)

Case [2022] ACTSC 273


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Ezekiel (No 2)

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 273

Hearing Dates:

23 June, 31 August, 27 September 2022

DecisionDate:

10 October 2022

Before:

Kennett J

Decision:

See [69]–[70]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – where fire lit in medium-density residential dwelling – where offence is an act of family violence – where offender has history of committing serious family violence offences – consideration of the Verdins principles

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 29, 33, 34B

Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) s 8

Cases Cited:

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1

DPP (Vic) v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325; 47 VR 395
Ibrahim v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 6
R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21
R v Garay (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 128
R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20
R v NI [2016] ACTSC 361
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54 199 CLR 270
R v Snowden [2022] ACTSC 186
R v Tomo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 29

R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114

Parties:

The Queen ( Crown)

Lucas Ezekiel ( Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

B Morrisroe ( Crown)

T Lee ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)

File Number:

SCC 296 of 2021

KENNETT J:

Introduction

  1. The offender, Lucas Ezekiel, is to be sentenced for one count of arson committed on 13 August 2021, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). He pleaded guilty to this offence on 29 April 2022.

  1. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 15 years, a fine of $240,000 or both.

Facts

  1. During the early weeks of August 2021, the offender had been residing in a unit in O’Connor (the unit) with the lawful occupier (the complainant), who is his estranged wife.

  1. The unit formed part of a complex containing eight government housing units.  Each unit is of two stories and joined to others by at least one shared wall.

  1. On the evening of 13 August 2021, the offender was alone in the unit (the complainant having left some days earlier).  While alone, he deliberately lit a fire on the coffee table in the loungeroom.  This fire caused:

(a)     extensive damage to the north facing window frames on both levels;

(b)     extreme heat damage to the gutters of the roof;

(c)      damage to the underside of the floor beams on the second floor;

(d)     damage to the timber flooring on the second floor;

(e)     damage to the door, frames and beam of the entry door;

(f)       extensive damage to the entirety of the ground floor; and

(g)     damage to the exterior rear side gutter and eaves.

  1. The fire also caused damage to an adjoining unit, namely:

(a)     damage to plastic roofing sheets…

Continue reading R v Ezekiel (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ezekiel (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 273
Case
[2022] ACTSC 273
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ezekiel (No 2) involved a defendant, Ezekiel, who was charged with arson in relation to a fire lit in a medium-density residential dwelling. The offence was also recognised as an act of family violence. Ezekiel had a history of committing serious family violence offences. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including the principles outlined in Verdins. These principles are relevant to sentencing for acts of family violence and take into account the offender's history and the nature of the offence. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and that it served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the Verdins principles, focusing on the history of family violence perpetrated by Ezekiel and the specific circumstances of the arson offence. The court found that the offence was of significant gravity due to the potential danger to human life and the impact on the community. The court also highlighted the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, considering Ezekiel's past behaviour. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect these considerations, ensuring it was just and appropriate.

The court ordered the sentence in accordance with the Verdins principles and the specific circumstances of the case. The final orders were detailed in paragraphs [69] and [70] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [69]–[70]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.