DPP v White [2025] VCC 1085

Charges 1 and 2: Fires lit on 9 February 2022 (Fire 1 and Fire 2)

1. In the early evening of 9 February 2022, Amy Lee Dyer and Mathew Sloper were travelling in their vehicle along the Beaufort-Carngham Road in Chepstowe when they saw a red twin-cab utility driving along the road heading from the direction of Beaufort. The vehicle had distinctive tyres and rims. The prosecution case is this was your vehicle. The utility turned onto Carngham-Streatham Road and Dyer and Sloper continued driving towards Beaufort.
2. At the intersection of Lake Goldsmith-Carngham Road, Dyer noticed a small fire ('Fire 1'). The fire was at the base of a power pole, about 2km from where they had seen your vehicle. It appeared as though the fire had just started. There was not much burnt around the ground at that point, but according to Dyer, the fire was starting to get away. Sloper noticed smoke and flames at the stay of the power pole.
3. Sloper turned his car around and put the hazard lights on. Dyer called triple zero. Sloper exited the car and started to extinguish the fire. At this time, the fire was burning grass and continued to spread. Shortly after Dyer and Sloper arrived, you pulled up in your vehicle. Neither Dyer nor Sloper spoke to you. They left before the County Fire Authority ('CFA') arrived.
4. Anthony Baker, the CFA Captain for Snake Valley, and Kim Nunn, a local farmer and member of the CFA for 40 years, attended Fire 1. Nunn could see smoke and pointed out there was another fire on Chepstowe-Pittong Road ('Fire 2'). Nunn gave evidence that fire was lit around the same time and on the same day as Fire 1. Baker told Nunn to stay and look after Fire 1 while he attended to Fire 2.
5. Nunn gave evidence that you turned up at Fire 1 in your red utility. He said you told him your mother alerted you to the fire while you were on your way to the pub, so you turned around and came to help.
6. While this was happening, Baker arrived at the scene of Fire 2. He observed his group officer, Rob McKervale, was already there and had set up control. Baker also saw Neville Oddie at the fire with his private fire-fighting tanker vehicle. Baker then returned to Fire 1 and directed one of the trucks to extinguish that fire. He sent another truck to Fire 2, which had started to take hold.
7. Once Fire 1 was extinguished, which Nunn gave evidence took about an hour, people moved to Fire 2 to assist. Baker estimated Fire 2 to have been about three acres in size. Baker gave evidence that at the scene of Fire 2, you approached him to express interest in joining the Snake Valley CFA and gave him your phone number.
8. On 11 February 2022, forensic officer Rachel Noble attended the scenes of Fires 1 and 2. She conducted a scene examination and concluded in relation to Fire 1 that the fire had burnt an area approximately 10m long and 5m wide in the grass verge on the southern side of the road. In relation to Fire 2, she concluded the fire had burnt an area approximately 48m long and 40m wide in the grass verge on the southern side of the road. Both fires were said to have been started by the ignition of available material such as grass and vegetation, but the sources of the ignition were not determined. She opined the most likely source of the fires was direct or indirect ignition by a match or cigarette lighter.

1. At approximately 10:17pm on 12 February 2022, Senior Sgt Paul Allen and DSC Andrew Barnes were travelling on Ballarat-Carngham Road, Chepstowe. They saw you in your vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. They intercepted your vehicle. You told police you had left cricket and were returning to your home.
2. CFA volunteer Jordon Bush received a notification at about 11pm of a fire at your address ('Fire 5'). He got in his vehicle and pulled up about 50m from the fire. He was first on the scene. At trial he said the fire started to grow but was not 'blazing' as it was pretty humid that night and had been relatively cool that day. The fire was starting to encroach into the private property on the side of the road. Bush said the flames were about a metre tall. Oddie arrived next. It took them about 10 to 15 minutes to extinguish the fire. They worked around what they believed to be the point of ignition, but did not worry too much about the fire in the paddock. Other brigade members, including Nunn and Breen arrived and put out the fire inside the paddock.
3. Bush said he stood next to the gate outside your house. You came outside and spoke to him. Bush asked you if you saw anything and you replied that you had seen flashing lights, which alerted you to come outside, and that was it. Nunn also spoke to you for a few minutes. You told him you had been in bed after playing cricket. You told Breen you had been at cricket all day and had come home, gone straight to bed and your dad woke you up because he could smell smoke.
4. On 13 February 2022, forensic officer Laura Noonan attended the scene of Fire 5 and conducted an examination. She observed the majority of the fire had burnt in the verge of the road and extended about four metres into a crop paddock. Noonan determined the fire had started towards the eastern end of the burnt area and extended in a westerly direction. She said the long dry grass on the verge acted as fuel for the fire. In her opinion, there did not appear to be many accidental ignition causes and, although the ignition source was not able to be determined, she concluded direct ignition by a match or cigarette lighter was the most likely source of the fire.

1. On 24 February 2022, at approximately 10pm, CFA officers Baker, Bush and McInnes were returning home from a CFA meeting in Beaufort. They turned onto Station Lane and located a fire. Bush said the fire looked like it had just been lit. The fire was about 20m x 20m and on private property ('Fire 6').
2. They pulled over but did not have any fire-fighting gear with them. McInnes called 000 and they waited for another brigade member to arrive. The water extinguisher and another brigade member arrived. Bush, Baker and McInnes attempted to stomp out the fire as it progressed along the nature strip and moved some of leaf litter and heavier debris so the fire did not become unmanageable.
3. Eventually, Baker's son arrived with extinguishing equipment. Bush said they let most of the fire on the nature strip self-extinguish. He recalled Fire 6 was quite vigorous and it took significant resources to control it.
4. On 25 February 2022, forensic officer John Kelleher attended the scene. He gave evidence that Fire 6 was approximately 150m from the nearest house and near dried grass and leaf litter. He estimated the fire covered approximately 500 square metres and thought the fire had started at the south-eastern corner of the verge, about a metre in from the road. Although the source of ignition could not determined, Kelleher concluded it was most likely the fire was lit by a match or cigarette lighter.

1. At about 7:10pm on 6 March 2022, Peter Frost went to the Royal Hotel in Snake Valley. You were already there. He saw you leave the hotel in your red utility at about 7:20pm.
2. Some time after 7pm, Michael Cunliffe and Scott Waters left Nunn's farm, where they had spent the evening. Cunliffe was driving with Waters down the fairly long driveway heading from Nunn's farm towards the Pittong Road, Chepstowe. They both saw a red utility drive past, heading in the opposite direction. Waters gave evidence he previously had seen the same car parked around the corner from Nunn's house and at your parents' house. The prosecution case was this was your car.
3. As Cunliffe and Waters turned out of Nunn's driveway, they saw something flicker on the side of the road. As they got closer they spotted a fire ('Fire 7'). Cunliffe estimated the fire had only just 'taken off' when they first saw it. They stomped on the fire, poured water on it and kicked dirt on it. Cunliffe called the CFA. Oddie arrived with his own water tanker and started putting the fire out before the CFA arrived at the scene. CFA vehicles arrived about five to ten minutes later and the fire was contained.
4. On 7 March 2022, Noonan conducted an examination of the scene. She gave evidence that the fire did not extend into private property, but occurred on the western side of the road where there was long dry grass. She concluded, although the source of ignition was not able to be definitively determined, it was likely ignited by a match or a cigarette lighter.

1. In the morning of 14 May 2022, Nunn drove to his farmhouse on Chepstowe-Pittong road to pick up a tractor. He was heading towards Goldsmith Road and could see there had been a fire ('Fire 9'). He observed a burnt patch along the fence line. He went home and asked his wife if there had been any fire alerts on the CFA pager. His wife said 'no' and rang Baker. During the trial Nunn was shown photograph 9.3, which showed the fire had burnt some of his property.[3]
2. Baker drove to the scene and confirmed there had been a fire. CFA fire investigation officers David Gerrard and Ian Nash attended the scene. Later that morning, LSC Anderson arrived and spoke with Gerrard, who pointed out the seat of the fire and some accelerant on the gravel road surface. Anderson observed the burnt patch smelled of petrol. The fire burnt tall dry grass on the eastern side of the road and had travelled in a southerly direction for about 40m.
3. A sample was collected from the burnt patch on the road. Forensic testing revealed low levels of moderately evaporated petrol in the sample.

1. In the morning of 17 February 2022, police attended your home and executed a search warrant. You were arrested and taken to Ballarat police station. On the way, you agreed to identify fires that had occurred in the area. SC Aaron White drove in accordance with your directions. DSC Le Maitre recorded the conversation, which was played during the trial.[4]

1. At approximately 7:38am on 17 February 2022, you participated in a record of interview. You denied being responsible for any of the fires. You were released pending further enquiries.
2. On 18 May 2022, you were again arrested at your home and taken to Ballarat police station. At 9:28pm you participated in a second record of interview. During this interview you initially denied any involvement, however you eventually made admissions to lighting Fires 5, 6 and 9.
3. The prosecution submits that during this interview you told some admitted lies, but you also answered some questions truthfully and made relevant admissions. I agree.

1. Arson is a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. This indicates the seriousness with which the legislature, on behalf of the Victorian community, views this offence.
2. Arson offences are generally regarded as being particularly grave. In R v Halden,[5] Murphy J said:

[Arson] is a crime which may be committed in a very wide range of circumstances. The property damaged may vary from a book to a mansion, and no doubt the penalty to be imposed will be tempered according to the nature of the property and the damage done.

The penalty may also vary according to the circumstances in which the crime is committed.[6]

Arson is a serious crime in this State's calendar, which not only has the capacity to severely impact upon the sense of security of its immediate victims, as occurred in this case, but also is destructive of the sense of safety and security of those who are indirectly affected by it, as likewise in this case were the neighbours.[8]

1. When assessing the objective gravity of your offending, I may take into account the nature of the landscape and the impact it has on the risk of fire spreading.[9] Here, your offending conduct is aggravated by the lighting of multiple fires in a rural area, where there was an increased risk of the fires spreading causing the loss of surrounding farmland. You have lived in a rural area all your life and I consider you would have been well aware of these dangers.
2. I accept the prosecutor's submission that Fire 6 is the most serious of the charged offences. The fire was approximately 150m from a residence at Station Lane. As I earlier noted, Bush took a video of Fire 6 which depicted the extensive size of the fire. The fire burnt approximately 20m into private property. The prosecutor also submitted because the fire was lit at night and away from the main road, it was less likely to be promptly detected, thereby aggravating the offending conduct.
3. Nonetheless, overall I consider your offending to fall into the low to lower mid-range for offending of this type. Your conduct appears to have been spontaneous and impulsive. There is no evidence your acts in lighting the fires were premeditated, well-planned or exhibiting a sophisticated technique an ordinary lay person would not possess.[10] However, I acknowledge even unsophisticated offending may have grave consequences.[11]
4. The reasons behind your offending conduct are unknown and unknowable. Why, at your age, you suddenly decided to commit these offences is a complete mystery, and I fear will remain so while you continue to deny committing these offences.
5. Clearly, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment must be given significant weight. I do not consider I need give any weight to specific deterrence or protection of the community in sentencing you for these offences. I consider the processes of your arrest, the investigation and the trial, together with the opprobrium you have suffered and, no doubt, will continue to suffer in your community, will be sufficient to ensure you do not re-offend. It has been over three years since you committed these offences and you have not re-offended during that time.

1. Two court-ordered reports were prepared for your plea hearing:

(a) A pre-sentence psychological report prepared by Professor Michael Daffern dated 8 July 2025;[12] and

(b) An extended pre-sentence assessment - outcome report prepared by Jordan Austin and Bridget Callow, Court Assessment and Prosecutions Officers, dated 18 June 2025.[13]

1. You were born in August 1993 and are currently aged 31. You grew up in a rural area outside Ballarat and your family has lived on the same 40 acre property since you were six months old. You are the youngest of seven children, with three brothers and three sisters.
2. You described your upbringing to Professor Daffern as 'normal'. Your parents had a good relationship with only occasional arguments. You did not report a history of family violence, and neither parent used drugs or abused alcohol. During your childhood, you also had normal relationships with your siblings and you did not feel as though you were treated preferentially or more poorly, than any of them. There is presently some discord between you and some of your siblings, which you attribute to their drug abuse.
3. You described yourself during your childhood and teenage years as being sporty, athletic and 'normal'. You attended Snake Valley Primary School, reporting good relationships with your peers and teachers and you achieved a satisfactory academic record. You attended Ballarat High School until midway through Year 9 before undertaking a bricklaying apprenticeship. You told Professor Daffern you did not enjoy school and preferred to be outside, so you only engaged in subjects you thought had practical value. You did not report any misconduct during your schooling.
4. Mr Austin and Ms Callow note in their report your extensive involvement in local sporting clubs since you were a child. In your assessment with them you reflected on the positive interpersonal relationships you fostered because of your affiliation with local sport. You still maintain strong friendships even though you have recently stopped playing football.
5. You denied having any issues with inattention, hyperactivity, your mental health, or challenges with your social and interpersonal functioning. You felt loved by your parents and you were not excessively disciplined, nor were you abused.
6. After completing your apprenticeship, you remained with the same employer for one year before the company was dissolved. You commenced work with another builder and remained there for nine years. In your late 20s you grew tired of bricklaying and found employment in civil construction, an area you have worked in for the past five years. You are now a 'leading hand' at your place of employment.
7. In relation to your relationship history, Professor Daffern reports you have had two significant, long-term adult relationships. Your first serious intimate relationship commenced when you were 21 and you share a nine-year old daughter. This relationship lasted five or six years and, according to you, ended when you learnt of your former partner's infidelity. You admitted to Professor Daffern your reaction to the separation was 'not a great time'. You maintained regular contact with your daughter for two years after the separation, but have not seen her for the past three years.
8. You disclosed to Professor Daffern there is currently an intervention order (IVO) in place which limits association, although you could not say why this was so. You told Professor Daffern you have neither threatened nor acted violently towards your former partner. You became emotional when discussing your daughter with Mr Austin and Ms Callow and reported a desire to reconnect with her after the finalisation of these court proceedings.
9. You have been with your current partner for approximately four years. You told Mr Austin and Ms Callow your partner is aware of the current proceedings and remains supportive of you
10. In relation to your mental health, you noted distress associated with the separation from your partner and life being 'shit' due to you being accused of the present offending. Professor Daffern writes you do not exhibit low mood or any hostility towards other people that may explain your offending conduct.
11. Professor Daffern writes:

Mr White did not report mental health problems at the time of the fire setting. He is not currently mentally unwell although he reports feeling rejected by people in his community. He said that this has been unpleasant and limiting but he has maintained the support of his parents, and he has maintained his employment and not reverted to drug or alcohol use. Importantly, he reported that some people who are close to him believed his claims of innocence. It is likely that Mr White believes he may be completely ostracised if he acknowledges setting the fires.

1. In relation to your drug and alcohol history, you reported consuming alcohol since mid-adolescence and only having used cannabis twice in your life, the last time being six years ago. In your twenties you would commonly consume two to three beers a night, occasionally more if you were socialising or watching football. You last consumed alcohol two years ago after being charged with the present offences. You told Professor Daffern alcohol has not interfered with relationships, employment or contributed to any health issues.
2. Despite some contradictions in what you told police, I do not consider alcohol abuse contributed to you committing these offences. Moreover, I accept you have been abstinent from alcohol since being charged with these offences.
3. In relation to what you told Professor Daffern about the present offending, you deny having a fascination with fires or a history of lighting fires. You said you do not have any issues with the people who work with the CFA and could not account for why you might have been suspected of the offending, which you continue to deny. You also continued to deny the offending in your assessment with Ballarat Community Corrections services.
4. You told Professor Daffern that nothing extraordinary occurred around the time of the offending, and any issues you had with your siblings or former partner pre-dated 2022 and were not concerning you at the time of the fires. Professor Daffern opines it is possible you are minimising the impact your relationship breakdown had on your mental wellbeing. He writes:

In summary, it is very difficult to confidently formulate the offending behaviour given Mr White's denial of the offences, assertion that he has never had a problem with alcohol, is not interested in fire setting and has not been significantly troubled by relationship issues.

1. You stood your trial, which was your right, but it means you can receive no discount for pleading guilty. As evidenced in both court-ordered reports, you continue to deny the offending conduct. Accordingly, you lack insight into the reasons for your offending conduct and you have demonstrated no remorse.

1. I accept you have no relevant prior criminal history. Accordingly, you fall to be sentenced as a person of otherwise of good character.
2. Mr Austin and Ms Callow assessed you as a low risk of general reoffending, utilising the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsibility assessment tool. Your highest criminogenic risk factors are 'pro-criminal attitude' and 'leisure and recreation', both being assessed as 'moderate'. This is predominantly attributed to your denial of the offending conduct. However, Mr Austin and Ms Callow note in their report you are willing to engage with the conditions of a Community Correction Order (CCO) and do not present as unfavourable towards a conventional lifestyle.
3. A number of protective factors act to reduce your risk of recidivism. You reside with your parents, who provide you with a level of support and care. The community in which you live is also well aware of your conduct and you are already subject to a heightened level of watchfulness, which I appreciate weighs on you and may reduce your likelihood of reoffending.
4. On balance, I assess you prospects of rehabilitation as being very good.

1. I accept the effect of delay is a mitigating circumstance in your case. You were first interviewed by police in relation to a number of the present offences on 17 February 2022, nearly three and a half years ago. You were charged on 19 May 2022 and committed to stand trial to this Court on 17 March 2023. It is now over three years since you committed the last of these offences.
2. As the Victorian Court of Appeal observed in Rodriguez v DPP (Cth):[14]

Delay is normally relevant in two ways. First, it is relevant to rehabilitation that has occurred during the delay and the effect that has in turn on specific deterrence. Secondly, delay is relevant in the sense that the anxiety and uncertainty of having the prospect of a sentence hanging over one's head during the period of delay is akin to punishment in itself.[15]

1. In this case, the rehabilitation aspect of delay is confined to the fact you have committed no further offences in the meantime. As I have said previously, although you continue to deny committing these offences and consequently lack insight into the causal aspects of your offending, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being very good.
2. So far as delay akin to punishment is concerned, much of the delay in this Court has been occasioned by your decision to stand trial. However, since you were charged in relation to these offences you have had the very real prospect of a sentence of imprisonment hanging over your head. Undoubtedly, this would have caused you considerable anxiety and stress. I take the punitive effects of delay into account in your favour.

1. I have had regard to current sentencing practice in relation to these offences as informed by the decisions of the High Court of Australia in R v Kilic[16] and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym)[17] and the Victorian Court of Appeal decisions in DPP v Zhuang[18] and DPP (Cth) v Thomas.[19] Specifically, I have considered the 'comparable cases' I was referred to by the prosecutor.[20]
2. While current sentencing practice is relevant to the sentences I impose on you, it is only one of a number of sentencing considerations I must take into account in imposing just sentences in your case.[21]
3. Moreover, it is difficult to gauge more than a general yardstick from so-called 'comparable cases', given the wide range of offending conduct that can constitute this offence and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent I have been able to gain assistance from comparable cases, I have sought to do so in your case.
4. The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, denunciation, deterrence, both general and specific, protection of the community and rehabilitation. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the offences, your culpability for them and your personal circumstances.
5. I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing your criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, so far as possible, you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
6. As I previously observed, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment need be given real weight in sentencing you for these offences. Since you have no relevant prior criminal history and no subsequent or pending matters and your risk of reoffending is low, I am of the view no weight needs to be given to specific deterrence or protection of the community. Overall, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being very good.
7. The present offence is not part of the standard sentencing scheme and is not a category 1 or category 2 offence as defined by the Sentencing Act 1991.
8. The parsimony principle requires I not impose sentences that involve your confinement unless I consider that the purpose or purposes for which these sentences are imposed cannot be achieved by sentences that do not involve terms of imprisonment.[22]
9. As the Victorian Court of Appeal observed in Boulton v The Queen:[23]

It follows from what we have said that a CCO may be suitable even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment (such as, for example, aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury, some forms of sexual offences involving minors, some kinds of rape and some categories of homicide). The sentencing judge may find that, in view of the objective gravity of the conduct and the personal circumstances of the offender, a properly-conditioned CCO of lengthy duration is capable of satisfying the requirements of proportionality, parsimony and just punishment, while affording the best prospects for rehabilitation.[24]

1. As I mentioned earlier, I had you assessed for suitability for a CCO and received an extended pre-sentence assessment - outcome report dated 18 June 2025.[25] You have been assessed as suitable for a CCO. One condition, unpaid community work pursuant to s 48C of the SA, was recommended to be included in the CCO, which I accept. However, I also consider you should be under the supervision of a community corrections officer for two years and I will impose a judicial monitoring condition.
2. I can impose a fine together with a CCO.[26] I consider the principles of denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment require an order of this type in this case.

On Charges 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 (intentionally causing a bushfire) you are convicted and fined an aggregate of $6,000 together with a CCO in the terms I will shortly detail.

I consider an aggregate fine is appropriate in all the circumstances, in particular given the nature of the charges and the offending conduct.

That fine is referred to the Director of Fines Victoria for collection and management.

The CCO on Charges 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 will be the one CCO.[27]

The CCO will be for a period of five years commencing today.

You are to perform 600 hours of unpaid community work over that period.

You are to be supervised, monitored and/or managed as directed by the Secretary for a period of two years commencing today.

I will impose a judicial monitoring condition. You are to re-appear before the court on 28 January 2026 at 10:00 via AVL from the Ballarat Community Corrections Centre for a review of your compliance with this order.

[1] Contrary to s 201A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ('CA').

[2] Pursuant to s 201A(1) of the CA.

[5] (1983) 9 A Crim R 30.

[7] [2004] VSCA 158.

[9] Robson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 256, [57] (Kyrou and Kaye JJA).

[10] Davies v The Queen [2019] VSCA 66, [720] (Kaye, McLeish and T Forrest JJA).

[11] Stanger v The Queen [2021] VSCA 25, [40] (Maxwell P, Kaye and T Forrest JJA).

[14] [2013] VSCA 216; (2013) 40 VR 436.

[15] Ibid 445-446, [36] (Warren CJ and Redlich JA) (citations omitted). See also Tones v The Queen [2017] VSCA 118, [36] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Kyrou JJA) and Thomas v The Queen [2019] VSCA 223, [66] (Ashley and Weinberg JJA).

[16] [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256, 266-268 [21]-[25] (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

[17] [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 444-447 [47]-[58] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452-455, [78]-[85] (Gageler and Gordon JJ) ('Dalgliesh').

[18] [2015] VSCA 96; (2015) 250 A Crim R 282, 292 [30]-[31] (Redlich, Priest and Beach JJA).

[19] [2016] VSCA 237; (2016) 53 VR 546, 606-609 [173]-[183] (Redlich, Santamaria and McLeish JJA). See also Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35, [21]-[25] (Priest and Kyrou JJA); Russo v The Queen [2021] VSCA 244, [53]-[56] (Emerton JA, Priest JA agreeing).

[20] Robson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 256 (Kyrou and Kaye JJA); DPP v Saxe [2014] VCC 605 (Judge Dean); DPP v Brown [2016] VCC 378 (Judge Smallwood); DPP v Briggs [2016] VCC 1557 (Judge Taft); DPP v Thumpston [2018] VCC 434 (Judge Chettle); DPP v McGrath [2019] VCC 209 (Judge Smith).

[22] See Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(4).

[23] [2014] VSCA 342; (2014) 46 VR 308.

[24] Ibid 338 [131] (Maxwell P, Nettle, Neave, Redlich and Osborn JJA).

[26] See SA s 43.

[27] See SA s 40.