The Queen v Aaron John Slater
[2015] ACTSC 323
•22 October 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | The Queen v Aaron John Slater |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 323 |
Hearing Date(s): | 21 October 2015 and 22 October 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 22 October 2015 |
Before: | Robinson AJ |
Decision: | See [29] – [30] |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offence – arson – plea of guilty |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 36 |
Cases Cited: | R v Graham (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, SCC 17 of 2009, 23 September 2009) R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Aaron John Slater (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms J Campbell (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Lynch Solicitors (Offender) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 180 of 2015 |
ROBINSON AJ:
This published version has been edited in accordance with s 712A of the Criminal Code 2002. The original text has been de-identified and contains deletions, substitutions and paraphrasing.
The Offence
Aaron John Slater, the offender, was aged 24 when he set fire to a car by throwing lit sparklers into it and leaving the car to burn. Consequently, the offender was charged with one count of arson in contravention of s 404(1) of the Criminal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment.
The offence occurred in the following circumstances. At about 7pm on 30 May 2015 the offender was driving and was in company with his girlfriend, OS, and Mr TU. Those people then met up with other friends and began travelling in another car, driven by a Mr KH. At around 8pm the offender and his companions came to be in the suburb of Fyshwick in the vicinity of a red Ford utility belonging to KC. On seeing the red car, Mr TU said to the offender “you should smash the windows for him taking the car tyres”. This was a reference to tyres previously taken by the owner of the red car from Ms OS. The offender replied “yeah, that sounds like a good idea”.
Following this conversation the offender removed a large block splitter from the boot of Mr KH’s car. The offender walked over to the red Ford utility and using the block splitter smashed four of the windows of the car. This was witnessed by those in attendance. The block splitter was put back into the boot of the car and the offender and his companions then departed the scene. After attending to other events the offender, Ms OS and Mr TU returned to the red Ford utility and, in the presence of Mr TU and Ms OS, the offender pulled out sparklers from his jeans, which he lit with a lighter. He then proceeded to throw the lit sparklers through the broken passenger windows of the red Ford utility.
The car was extensively damaged by fire. The motivation for the arson was known to the owner of the red Ford utility, Mr KC, who informed police of it and produced security footage of the incident.
On 4 June 2015 police conducted a digital record of interview with the offender where he denied any involvement in the offence.
On 23 June 2015 the offender attended the City Police Station voluntarily in company with his father and participated in a second digital record of interview. He admitted the offence on this occasion.
There was no claim for compensation as a result of the destruction of the car and I infer, favourably to the offender, that the car was of no great value.
Co-offender
Ms OS has been charged with the offence of arson as well. That case has not yet been finalised. The offender has provided a statement to police and has given an undertaking to co-operate in relation to prosecutions. He is entitled to a discount for this (Section 36 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005).
Plea of guilty
On 17 July 2015 the offender pleaded guilty to one count of arson before the Magistrate and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. The offender had originally been charged with a further count of property damage (the earlier block splitting damage). The Crown has elected to withdraw that charge upon the offender being sentenced for arson.
After being charged with arson, I conclude that he pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity and is entitled in the circumstances to a discount of 25% on the sentence otherwise to be imposed.
Subjective matters
The offender’s father, Mr David Slater, gave evidence before me. He said that his son was not academically inclined, indeed he could not complete the tests in the theory of landscape maintenance required of him to finish his apprenticeship. He had reached the fourth year of that apprenticeship when his employer cancelled his employment due to his unsuitability for the position. The offender had been educated to and had completed high school to year 12. He had had throughout his primary and secondary schooling the need for additional and remedial teaching resources. Throughout the same period he had suffered from ADHD and had taken medicine for it until the age of about 17.
His father observed that he formed relationships with much younger people than himself. His girlfriend, Ms OS, is apparently 18-years-old and Mr TU, I am told, is 17-years-old.
The offender’s father gave evidence that his son suffers from Crohn’s Disease, which is treated by infusions every eight weeks rather than daily medication. The symptoms of Crohn’s Disease are severe stomach pain with diarrhoea. According to Dr Donald Bradford, the offender’s treating General Practitioner, episodes of Crohn’s Disease are unpredictable and are often exacerbated by stress. The offender’s father gave evidence that there is a need to add to medication from time to time because the infusions given every eight weeks do not always have effect throughout the entire period.
I was told by the offender’s father that he had found out that his son had attempted to commit suicide last week, whilst his father and mother were away on a cruise. There was no documentary evidence to support this, and I was not given the details of it. It is obvious that such new information might not be able to be documented by the time of the sentencing hearing. I was not informed of the cause or causes.
The offender has a very supportive family. The risk of re-offending would seem to be at the low level. He has no criminal record.
It was the opinion of the author of the Pre-Sentence Report that although the offender accepted responsibility for his actions, he was not able to fully appreciate the seriousness of the offence. It is not easy to fully understand what the author had in mind by making this observation.
The offender gave evidence on the second day of the hearing. He very properly acknowledged his mistake.
The offender’s academic achievements and the need to have additional resources applied to his schooling were not documented.
The offender, at the suggestion of his father, did not sign an undertaking to comply with the periodic detention regime under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act. He was assessed as unsuitable for periodic detention.
The offender has obtained full time work split between two employers in the landscape/ gardening business. That is a credit to him. He also performs work for older persons with whom he is acquainted.
The Offence of Arson
The relevant sentencing principles to be applied to the offence of arson were recently canvassed by Justice Refshauge in R v Wrigley [2015] ACTSC 114 at [34] which reproduces an extract from R v Graham (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Refshauge J, SCC 17 of 2009, 23 September 2009). It is not necessary to repeat that list here.
It is true that the stated motivation for the arson was revenge. Tyres had been apparently taken by the owner of the torched car from Ms OS on a previous occasion. However, the role played by the suggestions and encouragement, from Mr TU and others, to the offender is tolerably clear. The offender did not appear to initiate the suggested course of conduct. The offender carried out suggestions made to him by much younger persons, who did not themselves, take a direct part in the destruction of the car but who were content to observe that destruction taking place. In the witness box the offender gave confirmation to this observation.
On the balance of probabilities, the offender has mental health issues although the evidence was somewhat frail to support this conclusion. I, nevertheless, am prepared to make that finding and in consequence give less weight to aspects of general deterrence than would normally be the case.
As above, I infer that the vehicle was not very valuable.
I am not prepared to find that there was any preplanning before the night in question.
Although the offence was committed at night and potentially put emergency service workers at unnecessary risk, I would not give great weight to these factors.
The use of the sparklers as a form of ignition appears opportunistic. The Crown did not submit otherwise.
Disposition
I give very significant weight, in the circumstances, to the fact that the offender has not previously been in trouble, has a supportive family, has difficult issues in his life and very good prospects of rehabilitation.
Order
For the offence of arson you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 16 months. I take into account a discount of 25% for your plea of guilty and reduce that sentence to 12 months. I further reduce that sentence to 10 months for assistance provided to prosecuting authorities.
I order that that sentence be fully suspended upon the offender entering into a Good Behaviour Order for three years.
| I certify that the preceding thirty [30] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Acting Justice Robinson. Associate: D.Hoitink Date: 22 October 2015 |