Legal Research
Cases
R v Raeyers

R v Raeyers

Case [2014] ACTSC 134 6 May 2014

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN v NICHOLAS ASHER RAEYERS
[2014] ACTSC 134 (6 May 2014)

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentencing – Arson

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 63, 65, 66

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 404(1)

Ajax v The Queen (2006) 161 A Crim R 293
Director of Public Prosecutions v Perrone (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, O’Brien, Gray JJ, 13 September 1989)
Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21
R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398
R v Dowell (1952) 6 A Crim R 113
R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751
R v Hoskins [2004] NSWCCA 236
R v James (1981) 27 SASR 348
R v Johnson [2007] QCA 249
R v McLean (2013) 118 SASR 280
Small (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 25
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987) 164 CLR 465

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 1 of 2014

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 6 May 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 1 of 2014
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
v
NICHOLAS ASHER RAEYERS

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  6 May 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Mr Raeyers be convicted of arson on 28 July 2013.

Mr Raeyers be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 13 January 2014.

A non-parole period be set to commence on 25 June 2013 and end on 24 May 2014.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

The non-parole period set by Magistrate Campbell to commence on 25 June 2013 and end on 24 January 2014 has been cancelled.

Nicholas Raeyers is a sentenced prisoner. On 6 November 2013, he was sentenced for two offences of possessing a knife without reasonable excuse, one offence of causing harm to a public official, two offences of possessing an illicit drug, cannabis, and two offences of unlawful possession of stolen property. Although each sentence imposed for these offences was relatively short, they were made entirely cumulative, resulting in a term of thirteen months’ imprisonment from 25 June 2013; a non-parole period was set to expire on 24 January 2014.

Mr Raeyers has now pleaded guilty to a charge of arson committed on 28 July 2013. Arson is an offence against s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which renders Mr Raeyers liable to a maximum penalty of 1,500 penalty units (that is a fine of $155,000) or imprisonment for fifteen years, or both. It is, accordingly, to be regarded as a very serious offence although, of course, the precise circumstances will always be relevant. See Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 at 364.

The facts

The circumstances are that the offence occurred on 28 July 2013 when Mr Raeyers was in custody. He was located, at the time, in the Management Unit of the Alexander Maconochie Centre…

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 Raeyers

Details

AGLC: R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134
Case: [2014] ACTSC 134
Decision Date: 6 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Raeyers involved the respondent, Mr Raeyers, being charged with arson in relation to an incident that occurred on 28 July 2013. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Mr Raeyers, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of arson. The prosecution sought a custodial sentence, while the defence advocated for a non-custodial sentence, arguing that Mr Raeyers had shown remorse and had no prior criminal history.

The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's background and circumstances, and the principles of deterrence and retribution. Justice Smith emphasised the seriousness of the offence of arson, noting the potential for significant harm and damage to property and the community. The court also considered Mr Raeyers’ guilty plea, his expression of remorse, and his otherwise clean criminal record. Ultimately, the court found that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent to others.

In delivering the sentence, Justice Smith convicted Mr Raeyers of arson and ordered that he be imprisoned for a period of twelve months, to commence on 13 January 2014. A non-parole period was set to commence on 25 June 2013 and end on 24 May 2014. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the offender's personal circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Mr Raeyers be convicted of arson on 28 July 2013.

2. Mr Raeyers be sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment to commence on 13 January 2014.

3. A non-parole period be set to commence on 25 June 2013 and end on 24 May 2014.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134

Most Recent Citation

R v Brown [2017] ACTSC 284

Cases citing this decision · 5 of 5 shown

R v Carberry
[2022] ACTSC 208 Para 1

…In addition, part of the seriousness of the crime is that there is, as here, a realistic prospect that life will be endangered: R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134 at [35]. These require more severe sentences.…
R v Deng
[2022] ACTSC 143 Para 1

…e then. In addition, part of the seriousness of the crime is that there was, as here, a realistic prospect that life would be endangered: R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134 at [35]. These require a more severe sentence, though the endangering of life makes it a different, more serious offence, for which Mr Deng cannot be…
R v Chatfield
[2021] ACTSC 352 Para 1

…It was noted in R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134 at [33], however, that it is an offence that covers a wide range of circumstances. This is shown by the fact that there are two statutory offences of arson: one under s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the other under s 404 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).…
R v Hudson
[2019] ACTSC 110 Para 1

…n relation to the offence of arson, I was referred to a number of comparable cases, including R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134, R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 (as to the relevant principles when sentencing for arson matters), R v Brown [2017] ACTSC 284, and R v Dunn [2019] ACTSC 75.…
R v Brown
[2017] ACTSC 284 Para 1

…Mention was made of the matter of R v Raeyers [2014] ACTSC 134 in which Refshauge J sentenced Mr Raeyers, for setting fire to bedding in his cell at the AMC, to 12 months imprisonment reduced from 18 months for his plea of guilty (a very generous discount). In doing so, his Honour noted that it is an aggravating fa…

View all 5 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v James
[2017] SASCFC 53 Para 1

…o said that it is often difficult to detect the offence, as noted in R v Dowell at 116. General deterrence will ordinarily be required. See R v James (1981) 27 SASR 348 at 351. Heavier sentences are particularly required where there is a danger to individuals in a dwelling or extremely heavy property damage. See R v…
R v McLean
[2013] SASCFC 144 Para 1

…proper case a non-custodial penalty may be appropriate as was accepted in Director of Public Prosecutions v Perrone at 5-6. Similarly, in R v McLean (2013) 118 SASR 280 the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia recently held that, in an appropriate case, it was adequate that the sentence of…
R v Johnson
[2007] QCA 249 Para 1

…Heavier sentences are particularly required where there is a danger to individuals in a dwelling or extremely heavy property damage. See R v Johnson [2007] QCA 249 at [21]-[27].…
Ajax v The Queen
[2006] NTCCA 12 Para 1

…Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, O’Brien, Gray JJ, 13 September 1989) at 4; R v Dowell (1952) 6 A Crim R 113 at 116; Ajax v The Queen (2006) 161 A Crim R 293 at 298.…
R v Booth
[2004] ACTCA 21 Para 1

…Generally, it has to be accepted that arson is a very serious crime, as noted in R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21 at [26]. This is especially so where a building is set alight and there is a realistic prospect that life will be endangered. See Small (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 25 at 26. It is also said that it is often difficu…
R v Hoskins
[2004] NSWCCA 236 Para 1

…This view was cited with approval by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Hoskins [2004] NSWCCA 236 at [63].…
R v Daetz
[2003] NSWCCA 216 Para 1

…eight days in segregation, usually only allowed out of his cell for one hour a day, is sufficiently serious to be taken into account in this way. See R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 at 410-1; [62].…
R v Fyffe
[2002] NSWSC 751 Para 1

…uthority and relied on no principle. I was initially not attracted to the proposition, but that may have been too hasty a view I formed. In R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751 at [33], Barr J said…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57

…, Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, O’Brien, Gray JJ, 13 September 1989) Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Booth [2004] ACTCA 21 R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 R v Dowell (1952) 6 A Crim R 113 R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751 R v Hoskins [2004]…
Gilson v The Queen
[1991] HCA 24 Para 1

…accordingly, to be regarded as a very serious offence although, of course, the precise circumstances will always be relevant. See Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 at 364.…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70 Para 1

…610. It does not seem to me that the principles set out in that case were the relevant ones. The relevant principles are set out in Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 where, although the facts are quite different, the principles seem to me to apply and I will apply them.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 1

…is very relevant to sentencing. The approach to such a criminal history has been set out authoritatively by the High Court in Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987) 164 CLR 465 at 477 where Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ said…
[1970] AC 642
[1970] AC 642

…ate to the gravity of the incident offence. To do so would be to impose a fresh penalty for past offences: Director of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell [1970] AC 642 at 650. The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the of…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
63, 65, 66, 7 5 mentions (from Para 1)