R v Ledger

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Crown prosecuted Phillip Ledger, who had pleaded guilty to one count of attempted arson. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $240,000, 15 years' imprisonment, or both. The offender committed the offence on 22 December 2019, by throwing flammable liquid from a container onto and around a truck owned by Mr Spencer, the offender's former employer, and used in his Hiway Concrete business. The offender then ignited the liquid. The resulting fire burned the grass around the truck in an area of approximately 20 metres by 5 metres, but the truck itself did not ignite. The offender drove away without attempting to extinguish the fire. The Crown case was strong, but that was partly because of admissions that the offender had made to the police. Pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), the court will allow a discount of 25 per cent of the sentence that it would otherwise have imposed.

The offender argued that the offence was of low objective seriousness, when compared to other offences of this type. It was an impulsive offence, motivated by resentment which was related to the offender's underlying anxiety. The offender was 70 years old and had a limited criminal record. The offender was born in Yass, New South Wales, and is one of four siblings. He had a happy childhood. The offender left school at 16 years of age. From then until late 2019, he was continuously employed. He has not worked since the offence. He receives the aged pension. The offender has been married for 45 years, and the couple owns their own home. The offender assists his wife to attend her many medical appointments. The offender himself experiences health issues. The offender has no problems with substance abuse. One of his hobbies is tinkering with motors, and he has repaired several lawnmowers for members of his family. The offender suffers from anxiety, for which he is treated with medication. The offender has two adult children, who reside in Canberra. The offender's son stated that the offence was "very out of character" for his father.

The court considered the offender's subjective features, the objective seriousness of the offence, and the circumstances of comparable cases. The court considered that the offender would not benefit from more than low intervention by ACT Corrective Services, commensurate with the assessed low risk of recidivism. The court noted that, given the low objective seriousness of the offence and the offender's subjective circumstances, a good behaviour order is not outside the range of available sentences. The court made a good behaviour order for a period of three years, from 27 May 2021 to 26 May 2024, with the following additional conditions: (a) The offender submit to the supervision of ACT Corrective Services for 6 months and thereafter for any further period that ACT Corrective Services deems appropriate; and (b) The offender report to Corrective Services by 4 PM on 28 May 2021. The offender is convicted of the offence.