ALLIE, M J

STATE OF TASMANIA v MATHEW JOHN ALLIE                                 22 APRIL 2021

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE                                                          GEASON J

 

Mr Allie, I am sentencing you today in respect of a number of matters, one of which was required to be dealt with in this Court, and two of which are summary matters that I am dealing with pursuant to the power to do so contained within the Criminal Code. The three charges are, a count of making a false statutory declaration and false statements; a count of unlawfully setting fire to property; and a count of attempting to dishonestly acquire a financial advantage.

 

At 8.41 pm on 26 June 2019 police attended at Clarendon Vale oval where they located a grey Holden Captiva engulfed in flames. The vehicle was destroyed as a result of the fire.

 

Examination of the vehicle revealed that the fire had been deliberately lit. The police determined that you were one of the two registered owners of that vehicle and attended upon you shortly afterwards. You made a statutory declaration to the effect that the vehicle had been parked on your front lawn on 26 June and had been stolen. You said that the vehicle required keys to be started, and that both sets of keys were in your possession, or your partner’s. You said the vehicle was in good condition prior to being stolen, that it had travelled some 200,000 kilometres, had half a tank of fuel, you said it was insured, and that you had not given anyone permission to take it. You asked police to investigate the matter.

 

Your assertions that the vehicle was stolen, that you had not given anyone permission to take it or use it, and that it was in good condition, were false.

 

As a result of the vehicle’s destruction you initiated an insurance claim with Suncorp. You encouraged your partner, who was not involved in your crimes, to contact them to report the theft of the vehicle and its destruction. The vehicle was insured to a value of $15,000. The insurer conducted its own investigation, including obtaining a report from forensic investigators. That report revealing that the steering and ignition lock was in place and intact prior to when the fire was lit; that there was no evidence of any bypass by force or manipulation of that system; that it was clear that the steering wheel was last released when the vehicle was last started by a correctly coded key; and that there was no evidence indicating the steering lock barrel had been illicitly operated.

 

In your first record of interview under caution you maintained that the vehicle had been stolen and you refuted the information contained within the forensic report. You did not disclose any of the mechanical issues with the vehicle. The following day the police spoke to a mechanic who made a statutory declaration to the effect that this vehicle had an issue with the starter motor; that he had advised the sale of the vehicle before spending more money on it; and that he had later learned later that the vehicle had been stolen and burnt out.  He apparently found it strange that that could have occurred because these vehicles had a late model security system, making them hard to steal.

 

On 9 June 2020 and at your request you participated in a second interview and you admitted that you had organised for the vehicle to be burnt out; that you took full responsibility for your actions; that no one else was involved; that you knew it was the wrong thing to do and illegal; that you lied in your first interview; and that your motive was to prevent your partner from giving the vehicle to her daughter. You admitted arranging for the vehicle to be burnt out and that you had paid a person to do so. You followed that person to Clarendon Vale oval for that purpose and he was conveyed home by you afterwards.

 

The Crown submits that this is a serious case because, whilst you ultimately co-operated with police, your co-operation came almost a year after the offence occurred, and during that period you had lied and misled police and the insurer. As a result of your conduct, the insurer sustained a loss of $12,502 which included towing fees and investigation fees.

 

You appear before this Court without relevant prior convictions. You have a number of traffic offences but your record is unremarkable in that respect. I have had a detailed submission in mitigation from Mr Stevens, and note that you accept the seriousness of your conduct and acknowledge the ongoing nature of your dishonesty over the period you maintained this lie.

You have good work history, and I have received a reference which speaks to your diligence as to an employee and your personable nature. I accept that this conduct is out of character for you. I accept your plea of guilty as evidence of your remorse.

 

 

Offending such as yours is hard to detect, and whilst it was detected, that was at considerable cost to your insurer. It is also prevalent, and comes at a considerable cost to the community. The motivations for your actions are, to say the least, somewhat strange and, unusually, you were not motivated by greed. That reason indicates a degree of emotional immaturity on your part. The idea of destroying a perfectly good piece of property in order to prevent your stepdaughter from receiving it, is an extreme response to your concern about her benefitting from that gift.

 

The penalty the Court imposes must deter others from engaging in similar behaviour, whatever the motivation, and accordingly I intend to impose a sentence which marks the objective seriousness of the conduct.

 

I consider, based upon the contents of the plea in mitigation, that the need for personal deterrence is not as great as might sometimes be the case. I expect that the self-reflection in which you have engaged, culminating in your admissions to police and your ultimate plea of guilty, serve to establish that you are unlikely to offend like this again. However, to mark the objective seriousness of the offending, I consider that a term of imprisonment is appropriate and I sentence you to 8 months’ imprisonment. That is a global penalty. I have decided in the circumstances that it is appropriate to suspend the operation of that term for a period of three years on condition that you are of good behaviour and commit no offence punishable by imprisonment in that time. That is intended to mark the gravity of your conduct whilst modifying the effect of the sentence to reflect your antecedents, and your general good character. It will encourage your rehabilitation.

 

Should you commit an offence punishable by imprisonment over the next three years you run the risk of being required to serve the 8 month term of imprisonment that I have just imposed upon you.

 

I make the compensation order in favour of Suncorp which is sought by the State.