R v Pike - [2002] QCA 242

[2002] QCA 242

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
WHITE J
WILSON J

No CA 132 of 2002

THE QUEEN

GLEN PIKE Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/07/2002

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 4th of April 2002 to a charge of arson which was committed on the 22nd of May 2001. The property in question was what had been, for some time previous, the home in which the applicant and his wife resided. It appears that his wife was the owner of the land, and that both of them were the mortgagees with respect to the house.

It is clear from medical reports which were placed before the sentencing Judge that for some time prior to the events in question the applicant had suffered from alcoholism and depression. Probably because of that there had been some matrimonial disharmony, though other evidence does suggest that for quite a lengthy period the applicant and his wife had got on tolerably well. He had apparently, from time to time, made threats to burn down the house but so far as is revealed by the evidence those threats had not previously materialised.

On the morning in question there was some indication that the applicant was particularly depressed about the matrimonial relationship. He did not give the psychiatrists who examined him after the incident any particular reason for his behaviour. Before his wife left for work he warned her that he was going to burn down the house and he suggested that she take her clothes and the dog with her when she left to go to work nearby. A little while later she was informed that the house was on fire. This was not a case where the arson was committed for financial gain. In this Court the applicant has queried some of the estimates of damage which were placed before the sentencing Judge. To my mind those figures are in no way decisive; it is clear that significant property damage was occasioned by the fire. As the offence was not committed for financial gain, it appears to be explicable only by the background of the matrimonial relationship. It is also in the applicant's favour that he knew that no-one was home at the time he set the building alight.

In the course of his sentencing remarks the learned sentencing Judge said:

"Although you were suffering from alcohol dependence and depression at the time you clearly had an insight into what you intended to do as you told your wife when she was leaving that there would be nothing there when she returned."

Again that observation appears to be supported by the material placed before the sentencing Judge and it was not challenged on the hearing of this application.

The applicant was born on the 8th of November 1963 making him 37 years of age when the offence was committed and 38 years when he stood for sentence. He did have a criminal history but it could be regarded as of minor…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Pike

Details

AGLC: R v Pike [2002] QCA 242
Case: [2002] QCA 242
Decision Date: 15/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pike, the applicant, Glen Pike, pleaded guilty to a charge of arson committed on May 22, 2001, involving the property that he and his wife had resided in. The wife owned the land, and both were mortgagees. Pike had a history of alcoholism and depression, which led to matrimonial disharmony and threats to burn down the house, which eventually materialised. On the day of the incident, Pike warned his wife that he intended to burn down the house and suggested she leave with her clothes and the dog. The arson was not committed for financial gain, and no one was home when the fire was set. The applicant's age, criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offence were considered during sentencing.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and whether Pike's alcoholism and depression should have been considered mitigating factors. The Court examined previous cases with similar circumstances and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and within range. The Court also noted that Pike's alcoholism and depression did not relieve him of criminal responsibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The judges concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate, considering the circumstances and the comparable cases. The Court did not find any grounds for interference and emphasised that Pike's alcoholism and depression did not negate his criminal responsibility.

Orders