/

/

DPP v Kazmar-Hall [2025] ACTSC 326 | Case summary | Zoe

ACTACTSC

DPP v Kazmar-Hall

[2025] ACTSC 326

Supreme Court of the ACT|2025-07-28|Before: Christensen AJ

View on the ACT Courts

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of the ACT

Decision date

2025-07-28

Before

Christensen AJ

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – fire lit in
response
to neighbours unrelenting bass music – risk to other residents

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – fire lit inresponseto neighbours unrelenting bass music – risk to other residents– reduced moral culpability – term of imprisonmentalready served

Judgment

Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: DPP v Kazmar-Hall (No 2) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 326 Hearing Date: 23 July 2025 Decision Date: 28 July 2025 Before: Christensen AJ Decision: See [24] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – fire lit in response to neighbours unrelenting bass music – risk to other residents – reduced moral culpability – term of imprisonment already served Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404 Cases Cited: DPP v Kazmar-Hall [2025] ACTSC 325 DPP v Jones [2023] ACTSC 20 DPP v Reed [2023] ACTSC 310 DPP v Death [2025] ACTSC 38 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 42 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 Parties: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Steven Kazmar-Hall (Offender) Representation: Counsel E Priestly (DPP) Self-represented (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Self-represented (Offender) File Number: SCC 237 of 2024 CHRISTENSEN AJ: Introduction

Mr Kazmar-Hall is to be sentenced for an offence of arson contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, 1500 penalty units, or both.
Mr Kazmar-Hall was found guilty of the offence following a judge alone trial: DPP v Kazmar-Hall [2025] ACTSC 325 (DPP v Kazmar-Hall).

The offending

Any offence of arson is serious, particularly one that has the potential to harm a large number of people. The fire was lit in a residential three storey complex which had up to some 40 units for vulnerable and high-needs clients. Not only was their safety, and their lives, put at risk, but a number of tenants seemingly experienced significant distress from the fire. The offender himself at the trial described that there were people “screaming” after his conduct.
The finding at the trial included that the offender’s conduct was done with the intention to cause damage to the building. Nonetheless, the offender’s moral culpability in doing so is reduced. His intention, while entirely misguided, was borne out of considerable frustration and reflective of the years of aggravating noise emanating from the adjoining unit. This would lead to significant distress and frustration for anyone, let alone a person suffering the mental health challenges of the offender. The prosecution acknowledged this, submitting that any person would be significantly affected, let alone a person with the vulnerabilities of the accused (see below at [16]). The prosecution also acknowledged that, despite the previous ‘threats’ by the offender that he would respond to the noise by burning the unit, on the occasion that he did, this was done without planning or premeditation. Mr Kazmar-Hall reached a point where he could no longer cope with the noise.
However, even in a circumstance of long-standing torment being caused by the conduct of his neighbour, which was seemingly not being efficiently addressed by various entities, resorting to the highly dangerous conduct of arson is to be denounced and deterred. Fortunately, the fire did not spread beyond the offender’s own unit, and no accelerant was used, but the fire still caused significant damage, with financial implications for the community, as well as likely inconvenience for repairs. I am readily satisfied that the only appropriate penalty is one of imprisonment.

Mr Kazmar-Hall is now 39 years of age, and was aged 38 years at the time of the offending.
He has a criminal history. The most concerning entry is for an offence of using a carriage service to threaten to kill. This offence occurred during the course of the noise complaints that were made, and involved threats directed towards a staff member of Housing ACT. A term of imprisonment was imposed. Mr Kazmar-Hall otherwise has committed offences in New South Wales in 2009. While there is no previous offending of a similar type, his criminal history is such that the availability of leniency as a result is limited.
The offender had a largely positive upbringing, although he has experienced challenging physical and health issues throughout his life. He is in receipt of NDIS support. He has previously engaged in employment, and has a bachelor’s degree, but in more recent years his health issues have prevented him from being employed. He has pro-social networks and strong social ties in the community and currently has support from family members. He does not currently have a stable housing option, and has intentions to potentially move away from the ACT if he is unable to secure housing upon his release from custody.
The report of Dr Furst provides that the offender has been diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, being an anxiety disorder. Dr Furst opines that: It is likely that his underlying anxiety disorder, in the form of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and his rigid personality style contributed to his lack of tolerance to the noise of his neighbour and angry feelings that he developed. He was also facing eviction at the time, having nowhere else to live and no support from his family. Accordingly, Mr Kazmar-Hall’s judgement was likely impaired by his anxiety disorder and the combined effects of his neighbour’s noise and frustrations about his inability to be transferred elsewhere or to stop his neighbour from making the perceived offensive noise.
Dr Furst’s opinion extends to a finding that the effects of Mr Kazmar-Hall’s health conditions would make a custodial sentence more onerous for him. The prosecution acknowledged that given the offender’s mental health at the time of the offending, in accordance with limb three of R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 (Verdins), general deterrence was appropriately moderated in the sentence to be imposed. I agree with this. I also consider that limb one of Verdins is of application, that is, that the offender’s condition reduces his moral culpability for the offending. This is particularly so given the duration of time that the offender tolerated the noise from his neighbour’s unit, which directly exacerbated his mental health conditions. Further, limb six, as to there being a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on his mental health, appears of relevance.
Dr Furst recommends ongoing psychological and psychotropic medication, both of which Mr Kazmar-Hall willingly engages with.
On sentence, Mr Kazmar-Hall took complete responsibility for the offending. He graciously disavowed any criticism of Housing ACT or other entities or individuals that he had engaged with over a number of years in an attempt to address the noise issue. He did though, understandably, seek that the Court have regard to his considerable efforts to address the issue in a manner other than by fire. I have had regard to the information adduced as to this at the trial, as well as to additional information contained in statements and statutory declarations produced on sentence by the offender. It is plain that Mr Kazmar-Hall attempted to resolve the issue without resorting to arson before he engaged in the offending conduct.