R v Williams
[2015] ACTSC 117
•30 April 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Williams |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 117 |
Hearing Date: | 30 April 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 30 April 2015 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [10]-[13] |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Particular Offences – property offences – arson – damage to property – breach of good behaviour order. |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 403 (1); 404 (1) |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Daniel Robert Williams (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 4 of 2015 |
Burns J:
The offences
Daniel Robert Williams, you have entered pleas of guilty to two charges. The first is a charge of arson and the second is a charge of damaging property. You first entered your pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court on 20 January this year and I accept for the purposes of sentencing that they were early pleas. Both offences occurred on the 5 January this year. On that occasion, you were living at a unit in Watson, which was owned by your partner. You argued with your partner and you were told to leave.
You lit a small fire at the front door of the unit. This constitutes the charge of arson. You then used a rock to break the driver’s window of your partner’s vehicle. This constitutes the charge of damaging property. I note that the maximum penalty for the offence of arson contrary to s 404 (1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is 15 years’ imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalty for the offence of damaging property contrary to s 403 (1) of the Criminal Code is 10 years’ imprisonment.
Consideration
An Agreed Statement of Facts has been put before me setting out in greater detail than I have given the facts relating to these offences. I believe that the summary that I have given is adequate for present sentencing purposes.
I will simply note that, with respect to the damage to the car window, it is not suggested that the value of the damage was significant. Also with respect to the damage to the door of your partner’s unit occasioned by you setting light to the door using a cigarette lighter, that damage was also quite minimal. Indeed, it appears that you used a cigarette lighter on the exterior face of the door of that unit for some time, with only very minimal damage being occasioned to the door. The prosecution has rightly conceded that the damage is towards the bottom of the range of damage that might be occasioned in that type of offence. It appears quite unlikely that any major fire would have been occasioned by your conduct. As such, I am willing to find that there was minimal danger to either your partner or to other potential residents of the block of unit arising out of your conduct.
I note that you spent nine days in custody with respect to these matters, which in itself is a significant penalty.
I note that you have a significant criminal history, which disentitles you to any leniency in the current proceedings. However, it is worthwhile noting that you have no similar offences recorded against you and also that your offending has apparently de-escalated over time.
It is clear from the Pre Sentence Report and the Court Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service Report which has been put before me that you have longstanding substance abuse issues. It is to your credit that you have taken steps over the years to come to grips with that to the extent that you have apparently not used heroin in a number of years and you currently are on the methadone program. It is of some concern, however, that these offences occurred when you were apparently quite intoxicated.
It often occurs that somebody who has been addicted to a substance, such as heroin, when they go on to methadone move to another substance and become addicted to that other substance. You have to be very careful that your previous heroin addiction does not result in you becoming an alcoholic.
In my opinion, these offences do not warrant a term of imprisonment. I intend to proceed by way of good behaviour orders.
Sentence
With respect to the offence of arson, you will be convicted. There will be a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months from today, with the following conditions:
(a)first, that you are to accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services for that period of 18 months or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer; and
(b)secondly, you are to obey all reasonable directions of officers of ACT Corrective Services, particularly concerning attending programs, counselling, testing or treatment for substance abuse.
With respect to the charge of damaging property, I record a conviction and there will be a Good Behaviour Order for a period of six months. In light of the conditions that I have imposed on the Good Behaviour Order for the offence of arson, I will impose no further conditions on the Good Behaviour Order for the damaging property offence.
The recording of these convictions means that you are now in breach of Good Behaviour Orders that were imposed by the Chief Magistrate in March last year for offences of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol in your blood and also driving whilst your license was suspended by law. I take into account the fact that, in each case, you were placed on a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 12 months and that you had almost completed those Good Behaviour Orders when you committed the present offences. I also take into account the fact that the offences before the Court today have nothing in common in reality with the offences that were dealt with by the Chief Magistrate.
For that reason, whilst I may find that there have been breaches of the Good Behaviour Orders, I will direct that there be no further action taken with respect to those breaches.
| I certify that the preceding thirteen [13] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Burns. Associate: Date: 15 May 2015 |
0
0
1