8 On 4 September 2006 the respondent pleaded guilty in the County Court at Bendigo to two counts of arson.
9 On 17 November 2006 the respondent was sentenced in the County Court at Melbourne to imprisonment for a period of 12 months in respect of each count,
producing a total effective sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. It was ordered that the period of imprisonment be served by way of intensive corrections order. In addition, the Court declared the respondent to be a serious arson offender within the meaning of s 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991, ordered forensic procedures under s 464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 be undertaken and made orders for compensation in favour of the victims of the two arsons.
10 The Director of Public Prosecutions contends that the sentence imposed upon the respondent is manifestly inadequate. It is argued that the sentence fails to reflect adequately the gravity of the offences, fails to take into account sufficiently, or at all, the aspect of general deterrence, gives too much weight to factors going to mitigation and insufficient weight to the maximum penalties applicable to the offence of arson. It is further contended that the sentence imposed gives insufficient weight to the effect of the respondent's offending upon the victims.
11 The circumstances of these offences may be stated briefly. The respondent had met a young woman to whom I shall refer as "AP", in late 2005 and commenced to see her regularly throughout December of 2005. At the time AP was 21 years of age. On the evening of 31 December 2005 the respondent and AP met and then attended at a Bendigo hotel. The respondent stayed at the hotel until closing time at 3.00 am. In the course of the evening AP received a number of phone calls from a male friend and she and the respondent parted during the early morning of 1 January 2006. The respondent described himself as being "very intoxicated" at the time the hotel closed. He left the hotel in search of AP but was unable to find her. He tried to contact her by mobile telephone but became increasingly agitated when she did not respond. Eventually she sent him a text message telling him to go home. This upset him. He started walking to AP's home hoping that she might be at home. As he walked his anger increased because of her apparent rejection of him. He sent her a text message saying "Goodbye to your window - say goodbye to your window. If you're not at home, you'd better get home". He arrived at AP's home at approximately 4.00 am. Upon arrival he smashed the window next to the front door of her home with his right foot. The respondent told police that he then decided to stay at her home until she returned to explain that he would pay for the damage to the window. He had cut his foot in the course of smashing the window and had wrapped a towel around his foot.
12 He slept for a while but upon waking took a towel from the kitchen and lit it and threw it on to AP's bed. It is apparent that he did this in a state of anger over his perceived rejection by AP. To spread the fire he picked up the towel and moved it to the curtains and the floor in the bedroom. He then proceeded to light curtains in the kitchen and bathroom. The smoke and flames became very hot and he could no longer breathe and he left the premises through the front window that he had broken previously. He informed police that before he left he threw AP's cat out of the flat but the cat ran back inside and was subsequently incinerated.
13 The respondent then went to a nearby telephone box and dialled 000 saying he needed the Fire Brigade. The CFA arrived shortly afterwards and put out the fire.
14 The respondent remained at the scene until the CFA and police attended. When first spoken to by police the respondent denied having anything to do with the fire. However soon afterwards he admitted his responsibility. A tape recorded interview between police and the respondent took place at 10.00 am on 1 January 2006. In the course of that interview he made full and complete admissions about his responsibility for the fire.
15 The fire completely destroyed the unit in which AP lived as a tenant. It also caused damage to the ceiling cavity of the adjacent unit. The quantum of damage to the unit tenanted by AP was estimated by its insurer as being $95,100. The damage to the adjoining unit was likewise estimated as being $12,946. AP lost personal property valued in the sum of $18,573. It is apparent that the loss she suffered and in particular, the circumstances in which she suffered such loss, were most traumatic for her. Her victim impact statement refers to her deeply felt loss of independence and her feelings of fear and lack of safety. She said, "I am afraid that I might never get back to living independently as I do not feel like I could trust people enough to live alone again". It is reasonable to infer that these feelings of lack of trust will be reflected in her capacity to engage in future relationships.
16 Having pleaded guilty to two counts of arson before the judge, a plea was conducted on behalf of the respondent on 4 September 2006. At the conclusion of the plea his Honour considered it appropriate to obtain a pre sentence psychiatric report. The report was obtained and further submissions were made before his Honour on 13 November 2006 by counsel for the respondent and by counsel for the prosecution. Counsel for the respondent contended that an appropriate sentence was a sentence of imprisonment to be served by an Intensive Correction Order. The prosecution contended that the offences called for an immediate term of imprisonment to be served by the respondent.
Personal circumstances of the respondent
17 Material before his Honour demonstrated that the respondent had just turned 24 years of age at the time of the commission of the offences, having been born on 2 December 1981. No prior convictions were alleged against him. The respondent was educated to Year 10 level. At the time of sentencing he was a single man employed as a process worker and a part time delivery driver. The sentencing judge had a letter of reference from the respondent's employer who described him as being a "reliable, hard working and punctual individual". The sentencing judge had before him a report from the Bendigo Health's Psychiatric Services which revealed that the respondent had self referred to that service in February of 2006 after experiencing depressive features including suicidal ideation. He was diagnosed as suffering from a borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. In addition his Honour had before him a psychological report prepared by a psychologist Anne Davidson on 13 October 2006. This report was in response to his Honour's request for a psychological assessment and pre sentence report. That report referred to a history that the respondent had commenced to drink alcohol when he was aged 15 and continued to drink heavily by binge drinking on weekends until he was 21 years of age. The respondent has not been a user of drugs. Ms Davidson did not conclude that the respondent met any recognised criteria to be diagnosed as suffering from a major mental illness. However, in her opinion, his behaviour did meet criteria for a borderline personality disorder. Anger assessment and his own self reporting indicated to her that the respondent had not learned to express his anger appropriately or assertively and became passive and withdrawn when angry. However, in the past he had smashed his own property when overwhelmed with anger. Ms Davidson formed the view that: