Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/122

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

25^th May 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Robert Anthony Haslam.

 

1 count of:

maliciously setting fire to another's property, contrary to Article 17(2) of the Fire Service (Jersey) Law 1959, as amended.

 

Age:     26.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Haslam was found drunk in a car by the owner.  Because the owner knew Haslam he did not report the matter to the police, but he did mention it to Haslam's employer.  Haslam was subsequently dismissed from his employment, which meant that he also lost his accommodation.  About a month later, again whilst intoxicated, Haslam set fire to the vehicle in an act of revenge which resulted in it being written off and the two vehicles on either side also being damaged.  The total cost of the damage was in excess of £8,000.  However, there was no risk to life or other property.

 

Following a conversation with a friend, this friend was so concerned about Haslam's safety that he reported the matter to the police.  The police went to see Haslam who readily admitted setting fire to the car earlier that day.  When interviewed under caution, Haslam admitted that he had acted out of revenge and that he had known what he was doing, although he was drunk.  He did not express any remorse for his actions.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown allowed mitigation for Haslam's guilty plea which was entered early on and also his co-operation in that he had been frank and candid at the time of his interview.  Although he was not a first offender, the Crown contended that he was entitled to some credit for his residual youth.  Defence counsel maintained that Haslam was remorseful and regretted his actions.  He had acted out of bitterness when he was effectively destitute and had not been in a rational state of mind.  He had incorrectly blamed the owner of the vehicle for his misfortunes.  Haslam made a full confession to the police before he was arrested and was entirely co-operative with the police after his arrest.  He had experienced an extremely difficult and deprived personal background having been ejected from the family home at 16 when he lost both his parents.  It was suggested that under these circumstances a person should be treated sympathetically when they failed to remain law abiding.  The facts of this case were also distinguishable from the other cases cited by the Crown in which a sentencing band of between three and five years had been suggested.  Such cases involved acts of arson to residential and commercial property which was clearly distinguishable from this case.  It was also suggested whether in all the circumstances the offence warranted a sentence of three years when compared with other offences, albeit of a totally different nature which were far more serious, in which three years' imprisonment had been imposed. 

 

Previous Convictions:

The accused had six previous convictions - although only one had come before the Jersey Court - including dishonesty, driving with excess alcohol, tampering with a motor vehicle and being in possession and use of an imitation firearm.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

3 years' imprisonment

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment.

 

This was a deliberate act of revenge as Haslam had quite wrongly blamed the owner of the vehicle for the loss of his employment and accommodation.  The Court confirmed that it took a serious view of acts of arson because of the risk to property and in some cases the risk to life.  The Crown had referred to a three to five year general sentencing band which could be either less or more depending upon the seriousness of the offence.  The Crown had put forward a powerful and persuasive mitigation.  Haslam had lost both his job and accommodation, he was sleeping rough and had sold his last possession.  He had spent the evening drinking, his bitterness had overwhelmed him and he had decided to set fire to the car.  By way of comparison, this was not a case of setting fire to a building, with no risk of explosion and therefore to life. There was a plea of guilty and he had made clear admissions from the outset.  In all the circumstances the Court felt able to reduce the conclusions.  The Court further noted from the social enquiry report that the accused's problems were often related to drink and binge drinking in particular.  The Court hoped that Haslam would take advantage of the services offered in prison.  

 

J. C. Gollop, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.J. Scholefield for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        This was a deliberate act of revenge against a person whom you blamed, quite wrongly, for your loss of employment.  The Court takes a serious view of any offence of arson because of the risk of serious damage to property and in some cases to life.  We have been referred to Thomas: Principles of Sentencing, which suggests a general band of some 3 to 5 years' imprisonment, although, of course it can be less in less serious cases, with a longer sentence in the more serious cases. 

2.        The Crown has moved for 3 years but Mr. Scholefield has put forward a powerful and persuasive mitigation on your behalf.  As he says, you were a man at the end of your tether; you had lost your job and your accommodation; you were sleeping rough; and you had sold your very last possessions before spending the money on an evening's drinking.  You then went to a bus shelter for the night and, as Mr. Scholefield submits, your bitterness welled up at what had happened and you decided to set fire to the car of the person whom, as we say, you quite wrongly blamed for your situation.  But Mr. Scholefield has emphasised  that this was not setting fire to a building; there was no risk of an explosion from the papers we have seen, and there was no risk to life.  You pleaded guilty and you accepted your guilt: you made admissions the moment you were seen by the police. 

3.        In all the circumstances, we feel we can reduce the conclusions and the sentence of the Court is one of 2 years' imprisonment.  We should add this: it is clear from the reports that some of your problems are related to drink and in particular binge drinking.  We hope that whilst you are in prison you will take advantage of the services that can be offered in that respect.

Authorities

Thomas: Principles of Sentencing (2^nd Ed'n); pp.170-2.

A.G.-v-Rawlinson (18^th August 1998) Jersey Unreported.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp. 30, 64, 85-86.