R v Richardson
[2019] ACTSC 9
•1 February 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Richardson |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 9 |
Hearing Date: | 1 February 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 1 February 2019 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [17] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Arson building/vehicle |
Legislation: Parties: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404(1) Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10, 33 The Queen (Crown) Andrew John Richardson (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S McFarland (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 281 of 2018 |
ELKAIM J:
On 7 November 2018 the offender pleaded guilty to a single charge of arson contrary to s404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment and, or a fine of $225,000.
The offender has been in custody in relation to this offence for 149 days. His plea of guilty entitles him to a discount on his sentence, which I assess at approximately 20%.
The offender first came before me 1 February 2019 when he sought an adjournment and referral for an Intensive Corrections Order assessment. He was then serving a similar order made by Mossop J and it was hoped that his rehabilitation prospects would be assisted by the referral and by the continuation of his employment.
Full details of the offence can be found in the Statement of Facts within Exhibit A. In summary the offender set fire to a business called Jenn’s Magic Massage which is located in a building in Dundas Court in Phillip. Significant damage was done to the premises. Photographs of the damage can be seen in Exhibit A. Losses in equipment and trading amounted to very large sums of money.
With the assistance of CCTV footage the police were able to identify the offender and he was ultimately arrested on 6 September 2018.
The offender does not seem to have had any particular reason for attacking the business. He said he chose it because it “smelt”. There is perhaps a little more of a clue in the report from Dr Kasinathan, included in Exhibit 1 where it is said that the offender told the doctor:
I was having a bad night, not hearing voices, was not sleeping, I was agitated, walked in there one time and it smelt bad, of semen.
There was clearly a degree of premeditation but it is very apparent that his mental health issues were also at play. He has a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia and a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia in 2002. He has a history of depression, self-harm and suicide attempts. He has been diagnosed with Tourettes Syndrome. He is socially isolated.
The offender was raised by his mother. His father left when he was five years of age. He has two siblings. He left school at 16 years of age. He remains a single person. His only employment was in 2012 when he was collecting trolleys.
The offender has some history of the use of cannabis but has found that it triggers his schizophrenia.
10. All offences of arson are objectively serious. This is evident from the maximum penalty. The extent of the seriousness however is difficult to categorise in this matter because there is no apparent reason for the particular premises to have been attacked. I think I am bound to agree with Mr Davies’ assessment of the objective seriousness as being “very serious”.
11. The objects and purposes of sentencing are set out in ss 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). They are important and must be considered. So too must s 10 because it says imprisonment should be a last resort. Section 33 is also relevant.
12. The Crown has submitted that a sentence of full-time custody is appropriate. As already noted, this has already occurred to the extent of 149 days. His sentence will accordingly be backdated to 6 September 2018.
13. Public deterrence is important, as is the punishment and deterrence of this offender.
14. Without knowing why he committed the crime it is difficult to know if he is likely to reoffend. One can only assume that the crime was precipitated by his mental health issues. The authors of the Pre-Sentence report have assessed him as having a low to medium risk of reoffending.
15. Mr Davies pointed out that there has been a degree of compliance with medication and treatment while the offender has been in custody. He should not remain in custody just to receive treatment. However the seriousness of the offence demands that he does remain in custody for some time, although I think his sentence should be suspended after a period provided he enters into a Good Behaviour Order to allow him some time to be monitored in the community.
16. It would obviously be very advantageous to him if his treatment while in custody was continued and I respectfully recommend to the prison authorities that this occur.
17. I make the following orders:
(a)In relation to the offence of arson to a building (CC18/11151), the offender is sentenced to 20 months imprisonment commencing on 6 September 2018 and ending on 5 May 2020.
(b)The term of imprisonment is suspended after the offender has served 15 months imprisonment (5 December 2019) on condition that he enter a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months (to 4 June 2021) and comply with his obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) and further that he accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obeys all reasonable directions of the Director-General or her delegate for 18 months or such shorter time as the Director-General decides. The Good Behaviour Order is subject to the following additional condition, that he participate in, and obey all directions in relation to, mental health treatment and programs.
| I certify that the preceding seventeen [17] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: |
0
0