6AAA: Found by consent not guilty by way of mental impairment
[2]
under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 and placed on a supervision order under the Act.
[3]
Lisa Sunderland, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of Arson, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.
The circumstances of the offending are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening which was tendered as an exhibit on the Plea.
At the time of the offence, you were renting the property at Hourigan Road, Morwell from the victim in this matter, Ms Moumita Guha. You had been living at that address for approximately five years. The property had been valued at between $185,000 and $245,000.
On 29 January 2024 at approximately 6:50 am, you were at home at Hourigan Road. Using what was probably a lighter, you set the lounge room couch on fire. The fire spread and that caused the remainder of the house to catch fire. (That is the basis of Charge 1 - Arson). The prosecution opening describes you as being psychotic at the time this occurred.
Christina Delvaney, who was travelling along Hourigan Road, saw black smoke coming from the front windows and called Triple 0. She thought the house was empty. No one else was around and the area around the property was quiet.
Another witness, Joseph Riodan, driving east on Hourigan Road, saw smoke coming from the property and pulled over. He saw Ms Delvaney on the phone to Triple 0. He then tried to knock on the front door but was unable to do so due to the smoke. He then decided to knock on the windows of the house to alert anyone inside to the fire.
After knocking for a while, he saw you coming out of the back door of the property. He watched you leave the house and run up to the back of the property without saying anything to him.
Soon after, Emergency Services arrived and began to put out the fire.
Police attended and at the rear of the property and saw you coming out of a back shed holding a grey coloured lighter in your hands. They also noticed a burnt-out jerry can nearby.
You were arrested. You were speaking incoherently. You struggled during the arrest. You appeared to be having a psychotic episode. The arrest was recorded on police Body Worn Camera Footage
It took the CFA some time to bring the fire under control and then extinguish it. The house was comprehensively damaged with most of the rooms substantially burnt.
You were taken to the Morwell police station where you were deemed unfit to be interviewed after assessment by a Forensic Medical Officer - Dr. Nittin Prakash, who described you as abusive, delusional and erratic.
Later in the day, after the fire had been extinguished, a forensic chemist Ms Michelle Morrison attended at the property and examined the premises. In her report she said:
[4]
a) There had been a fire on the couch in the living room.
>
> b) The plaster ceiling had burnt and collapsed through most of the house - except in the rear bedroom where the door had been closed.
>
> c) The pattern of the fire indicated it had originated on the couch and spread to the remainder of the room.
>
> d) It was not possible to prove or disprove the presence of flammable/combustible liquid as a source of the fire.
>
> e) The fire was ignited directly, by means such as a match or a cigarette lighter.
[5]
In the rear yard of 47 Hourigan Road, Ms Morrison located:
[6]
a) A partly melted fuel container in a fire box; and
>
> b) A fuel container spout
[7]
a) In a partly melted fuel container moderately evaporated petrol was detected.
>
> b) The fuel container spout - no flammable liquid was detected.
>
> c) A black zip up jumper was seized by the Police and examined, but no flammable liquid was detected.
[8]
The impact of this offence has been very significant on the victim, Ms Moumita Guha, who owned the Hourigan Road address. Mr Pirrie read out a very detailed victim impact statement which describes the multi‑faceted effects of this offence on Ms Guha. The effects have been emotional, physical and financial, and all that is set out in her victim impact statement.
In the letter that accompanies the victim impact statement, she describes the emotional impact. She says she has become isolated and fearful of other people. The financial impact has been very substantial, and the offence has put a strain on her marriage, as she feels guilty for the loss of the financial asset that she regards as having been important for her children's future. It is obvious that the impact on her has been very substantial.
The impact on the victim is a significant matter to consider in sentencing, but it must not be allowed to swamp all other sentencing considerations. It is impossible not to have very real sympathy for Ms Guha regarding the impact on her of her house burning down, for which you are responsible.
[9]
You pleaded guilty in this matter after I refused to give a sentence indication. There is no doubt had you contested this offence based on mental impairment, that defence would have succeeded. All psychiatrists agreed you were mentally impaired.
Based on the material, I think it is close to certain that the recommendation would have been for a Non-Custodial Supervision Order. In the end, you chose to plead guilty rather than avail yourself of that defence, and your counsel, Ms Siriwardana, has submitted that I should impose a Community Correction Order on you.
Given your mental state at the time of the offence, remorse is not a significant factor in the assessment of your guilty plea although I am told, and I accept, that you now understand the very substantial impact of what you did, you do feel regret and remorse for the consequences on Ms Guha.
I accept your plea has a utilitarian value and it shows a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. You have saved the prosecution, the police and the court the use of resources and time, as well as sparing the witnesses the emotional toll of having to give evidence. That said, any contest in this case would have really been one involving only the evidence of psychiatrists, it seems to me. The facts were unlikely to be contested so the genuine utilitarian value is reduced.
You have one prior conviction from 2023 in the Dandenong Magistrates' Court for unlawful assault and contravening a family violence intervention order, for which you received a 12-month adjourned undertaking without conviction.
That is of some significance to the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation and community protection in this matter.
[10]
Arson is a serious offence reflected by the maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment and ordinarily the destruction of a residential property involving a substantial loss and a very significant impact on the victim, which is what occurred here, would result in a sentence of imprisonment with a head sentence and a
[11]
non-parole period. As I said earlier, the impact on the victim has been very significant. Moreover, arson in a residential setting involves the potential of the fire spreading and causing further destruction and risks to the personal safety of anyone in the vicinity of the fire.
2. Ultimately, I accept the submission that I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that accelerant was used; it might have been, but I cannot be satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt. But in the context of your mental state, I am not of the view that that makes any great difference to the objective gravity of the offence, one way or the other.
[12]
A psychiatric report from Associate Professor Rajan Darjee was tendered at the plea hearing and he gave evidence this morning.[1] He took into account the previous psychiatric reports which had been prepared relating to the mental impairment defence from Dr Donal Hanratty and Dr Thavarajah, who assessed you in July and October 2024 respectively.
You were diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 22. You have experienced recurrent bouts of mania since then. Associate Professor Darjee, in paragraph 11 of his report, describes in detail the types of symptoms you experience when manic. He refers to the fact that you have had many hospital admissions and you have attempted suicide twice, once in your early 20s and more recently after losing contact with your children. Over the years you have also received various antipsychotic and mood stabilising medications.
At paragraph 12 of his report, he says you were diagnosed with mania with psychotic symptoms on your reception into prison after this offence. He refers to the assessments of Dr Hanratty and Dr Thavarajah, who both concluded you suffered from 'recurrent severe mood disorder with episodes of mania with psychotic symptoms'.
Dr Hanratty had labelled that 'schizo-affective disorder, bipolar type, multiple episodes' and Dr Havaraj had labelled it 'bipolar 1 disorder' which resulted in a 'manic and psychotic episode'. Both of those psychiatrists noted your history of substance abuse but concluded that 'her current and previous episodes were not due to the effects of substances'.
Dr Hanratty said in his assessment:
[13]
Although it is difficult to know exactly why Ms Sunderland engaged in such behaviour at the time of the alleged offences, she was clearly manic and experiencing grandiose and persecutory delusional beliefs and possibly command auditory hallucinations at the time of the alleged offences. She was preoccupied with concerns about the government, God, her housemate Tia, entities, and people in the community covering up these crimes. [He says that] ... on balance [in his opinion] you were unable to reason with respect to the wrongfulness of your behaviour at the time of the alleged offence as perceived by an ordinary person.
[14]
Whilst there was the presence of voluntary intoxication during the offending, the schizoaffective disorder was probably sufficient for you to have had the manic and psychotic symptoms causing you to engage in the alleged offending behaviour. [He further said] Although [your] schizoaffective disorder had deteriorated in the context of cannabis use in the week before the alleged offences, in my opinion the underlying illness was sufficient for you to have engaged in the alleged arson, even without the acute effects of cannabis intoxication.
[15]
You were mentally impaired because you could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong. [He said] Whilst there was an issue of intoxication from transient cannabis usage which 'potentially exacerbated the symptoms experienced but could not adequately account for the enduring nature of the episode, which appeared to have lasted at least three months'.
[16]
In the lead up to the offending in this case your mental health had declined significantly. Associate Professor Darjee refers to 'missed opportunities' where your mental health issues might have been addressed and the offending avoided. He says that in his report and he said it in his evidence this morning. In the defence chronology attached to the defence written submissions, the history of your attendances at hospitals in that lead-up period is detailed.
You do have a long history of poly substance abuse and at the time of the offending there is no doubt you were using cannabis.
You were remanded in custody for this offending in February 2024 and placed in a psychiatric unit. You were then placed in the Latrobe Hospital for several days after which you were bailed. You were in custody for over 20 days.
You had two further hospital admissions in September and October 2024. In October and November 2024, you engaged with a community mental health team, and you were described as stable and compliant with medication.
In March 2025, you were taken to hospital by ambulance and a few weeks later you again presented to hospital with further acute symptoms.
You are currently on a Community Treatment Order, which commenced 8 May 2025, and expires on 5 November 2025.
You are assisted and supported by your local mental health service at Latrobe Regional Health. A letter from Pamela Reynolds, your case manager at Latrobe Regional Health, indicated that your current medications include Sodium Valpoate, Abilify and a Paliperidone depot shot administered every four weeks. You are a long-term patient with Latrobe Regional, receiving treatment when you are in a 'manic state'.
Your counsel, Ms Siriwardana, submitted based on the evidence in the chronology, that you sought assistance leading up to the offending and you 'fell through the cracks'.
She submitted that your current situation is that you are supported in respect of your mental health.
The prosecution raised the contribution of drug use to your mental state, particularly the on-going cannabis use.
It is clear you have been a long-term drug user since the age of 16 in relation to cannabis and you have used methamphetamine as well, although there is no evidence that was a contributor to this offending.
The evidence is that cannabis is detrimental to your mental health,
[17]
Based on the psychiatric evidence, Ms Siriwardana submitted that at all the Verdins[2] principles are relevant in deciding the appropriate sentence in this case.
An offender's moral culpability may be reduced if, at the time of the offence, their impairment:
[18]
(a) reduced the ability to exercise appropriate judgment, make calm and rational choices, think clearly, or appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct; or
(b) it obscured the intent to commit the offence; or
(c) contributed causally to the commission of the offence.
[19]
The relevant question is whether the evidence establishes that the impairment contributed in a way that made the offender 'less blameworthy as a result'.
There is, in my opinion, no doubt about the very direct connection between your condition and the offending. In respect of your moral culpability, Associate Professor Darjee said this:
[20]
... there was clearly a close direct and causal link between her acutely manic psychosis and setting the fire.
[21]
I have already referred to the assessments of Dr Hanratty and Dr Thavarajah.
It is clear, in my opinion, that your moral culpability is significantly reduced, if not extinguished, by the psychotic state that you were in at the time of the offending.
Mr Pirrie, however, for the prosecution submitted that the seriousness of the offending in this case is increased by a combination of noncompliance with medication and drug use
The mitigatory effect of mental impairment may be reduced where the condition is self-induced, often by drug or alcohol use. The key issue is what you knew about the possible consequences of taking the relevant substance, what is required is foreknowledge that use of a substance 'was likely to produce a delusional state'. An offender's culpability is unlikely to be reduced where there is a history of using substances known to lead to hallucinations and violence. In my opinion, the evidence in this case from three psychiatrists, does not establish that absent drug use you would not lapsed into the delusional state that you did. The contribution cannabis made is not clear and I am not satisfied on the material in front of me that you understood that cannabis use was likely to produce the psychosis that occurred or the offending conduct in this case. Although, you have had a clear warning now that such conduct can occur when you are in a manic state.
In my opinion, but for your psychiatric illness, this offending would not have occurred.
Given your mental health, I cannot assign any real moral responsibility to you for what happened. You were in a psychotic state and that is not disputed. Therefore, you are not, in my opinion, an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence and specific deterrence. Just punishment must play a reduced role.
It is also clear that imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you than a person without your psychiatric condition; and as Associate Professor Darjee said, a term of imprisonment could 'lead to [you] experiencing a further episode of depression or mania and there would be a significant risk of deterioration in [your] mental health'. Verdins principles 5 and 6 are relevant.
[22]
Just briefly dealing with your background. You are 38 years old. You were 36 years old when this offence occurred.
You were born in Mafra and raised by your mother and father with your two siblings; you were the middle child. Your father worked as a truck driver and your mother stayed at home. You had a somewhat transient upbringing; you described your childhood as moving through different States.
There were other difficult aspects between you and your father. I do not think I need to go into the details in this sentence.
You struggled with literacy at school. You worked casually throughout high school, and after school, you worked in food factories until your early 20s, when you became mentally unwell. You have been unemployed since then.
You have three children. In 2012, you had your first child at the age of 24 with your then partner, John. He has had the care of your daughter since then.
In 2020, a second child was born with a man named Anthony Sommers. Mr Sommers now has full care of that child.
In 2022, you had your third child with a man named Warren. You describe your relationship with him as your most significant. That relationship ended when he was remanded into custody in mid-2023. Your third child with him is currently in the care of your auntie due to your mental health.
You currently live in a shared house in Traralgon. You have had periods of homelessness whilst you have been on bail for this offence.
A letter from Ms Rebecca Karr, a Specialist Family Violence Practitioner was tendered.[3] She is your case manager at Quantum Support Services. You have been supported by her since 1 July 2025 for areas of your life such as housing and mental health support.
[23]
Based on your background, Ms Siriwardana submitted the Bugmy[4] principles apply. In the end, having regard to my findings in respect of your mental health and their impact on moral culpability and general and specific deterrence, I am not of the view that the Bugmy principles have any real work to do in this case, but of course I have taken into account your upbringing and personal circumstances in sentencing you.
[24]
Turning then to your prospects of rehabilitation. Associate Professor Darjee assesses you as having a low risk of further offending for this type of offending. He gave evidence this morning that your presentation does not feature some of the usual indicators of a propensity for arson. He also talked about your overall risk and, of course, that will depend on your compliance with mental health treatment and the medication you are required to take, and it seems to me addressing your ongoing use of cannabis.
You are currently on a Community Treatment Order, and you have a long-term mental health case management team.
Mr Pirrie submitted that you at risk of having further 'episodes', and if that is right, you are also a risk of committing further offences. I accept that, but if your mental health is properly managed then the risks are substantially reduced.
[25]
Mr Pirrie submitted that protection of the community is an important consideration in this matter and this offence has had a very significant impact on the victim.
He submitted that, on his instructions, a sentence of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period was appropriate.
Your counsel submitted that a Community Correction Order was appropriate. Ms Siriwardana submitted that the principles in the well-known case of Boulton[5] were relevant. In Boulton the Court of Appeal said that a sentencing court should consider this question:
[26]
Given that a community correction order could be imposed for a period of years, with conditions attached which would be both punitive and rehabilitative, is there any feature of the offence, or the offender, which requires the conclusion that imprisonment, with all of its disadvantages, is the only option?
[27]
In the end the answer that I have come to is that the appropriate order is a lengthy Community Correction Order which is designed to facilitate your rehabilitation by long-term oversight of your mental health condition, with a range of conditions for that purpose, and an assessment for your drug use.
In my opinion, given my findings in respect of your moral culpability and the very substantially reduced weight to be given to general and specific deterrence and just punishment, community protection can be addressed by the imposition of a lengthy Community Correction Order.
[28]
I intend to impose a Community Correction Order in this case for a period of three years with supervision, mental health assessment and treatment as directed, and I will also order assessment and treatment for drug issues, as directed.
I also order judicial monitoring in this case. It seems to me I should have some oversight of this to make sure that your mental health is in check, that you have not again fallen through the cracks; that Corrections are making sure that you are receiving the treatment that you need; and that you are attempting to address your cannabis use as well. So, I am going to have judicial monitoring. I do not see the point in having it very quickly or very soon after this order. What I will do is make the first judicial monitoring towards the end of this year to see how you are going at that point, and then I will decide from there when it is necessary to have further judicial monitoring. We will come to that. Yes, the 17th at 9.30. I think that is the last sitting day of the year.
MS SIRIWARDANA: Thank you, Your Honour. As Your Honour pleases.
HIS HONOUR: So that will be part of it, all right. Do you understand? Now do you understand community correction orders, has that been explained to you?
They all have core conditions, one of which is that you have to report, it will be Morwell Corrections, within 48 hours. You need to do that in the next two days. You should probably do it today while you are here, it's just down the road. So that is the first condition.
You then must attend as they direct you. If they want you in there for supervision for some other purpose, well you must adhere to their directions, all right.
You must receive visits and report as directed.
You must obey their lawful directions.
If you change address you have to tell them.
If you get a job, and then you change the job, you must tell them that too.
If you want to leave Victoria, if for any reason you are going out of Victoria you must tell them and you must get their permission essentially.
So, they are all core conditions. There are others, but I will not go through all the others. They are all the core conditions. If you do not do any of those things, then you can be in breach of the order.
On top of that there is the supervision, the mental health treatment, and the drug treatment, and the judicial monitoring. They are all conditions too. So, you must comply with those conditions and if you do not, you could be in breach of the correction order.
If you commit another offence in the next three years, that is a breach of the correction order. There are a range of options open to a judge when you are in breach, but one of them is to cancel the order and go back and sentence you in any manner that might have been appropriate, having regard to your compliance with the correction order. So, you are always at risk. If you reoffend and you come back, then you must be dealt with again for this correction order. Do you understand all those things? All right. We will just print that out.