STATE OF TASMANIA v TAYLOR PAIGE MAREE BESSELL 16 APRIL 2019
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER J
The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of arson committed on 21 December 2018. The property concerned was a unit; 2/24 Chichester Drive, Devonport, owned by Housing Tasmania. It was rented by a Mr Garwood. At the time of the fire, he was in prison. The defendant lived in Unit 4 which was joined to Unit 2, the two units forming a separate building from other similarly configured units. The defendant did not like Mr Garwood. She later told police that she “had issues” with him. She knew he was in prison and did not want him to return to the address after his release. Based on her admissions to police, the defendant’s activities were as follows. At about 11.50pm she jumped over the back fence, went to Unit 2 and smashed a glass sliding door with a hammer. She immediately went back to her unit as she was worried someone may have seen or heard her. Shortly before 3am, the defendant went back to Unit 2 with a bottle filled with a combination of oil and petrol. She lit two separate fires in the unit using the accelerant and a lighter, one fire on a bed in a bedroom and the other on a couch in a lounge area. She did not intend to destroy the entire unit, but only wanted to make a small fire. She thought a small fire would mean Mr Garwood would have to leave the premises. The fire was detected by a neighbour at about 3am and emergency services called. When the Fire Service arrived, the unit was fully engulfed in flames. The defendant was first spoken to immediately after the fire and denied any involvement but later voluntarily went to the police station, was interviewed and made admissions. She has been in custody since 22 December 2018. The value of the unit lost is $100,000. while the contents destroyed have a value of $10,000.
The defendant is 22 years old. She has a record of offending starting in January 2015. At that time there was an offence involving graffiti on property, resulting in a fine of $700. She has a number of offences of dishonesty, the most prominent of which is dealing with the proceeds of crime relating to the use of fraudulently obtained gift vouchers. She was dealt with in this Court on 18 January 2016 and made the subject of a community service order for 100 hours. I have a pre-sentence report dated 1 April 2019, and a report from Dr Hope of the Forensic Mental Health Services dated 8 April 2019, both prepared for the Magistrates Court in relation to outstanding summary matters. I note that the range of charges faced there includes an alleged assault of Mr Garwood’s mother. The defendant was on bail for that offence, and I assume at least some of the others, at the time of this crime. That is of some relevance. The defendant had a disrupted and dysfunctional upbringing. Her parents separated before she was born. She then spent some time between parents, but has now had little contact with her father for some considerable time. Her mother re-partnered and the family moved, causing a change in school. She completed year 10 and went to college but experienced anxiety and paranoia. At this point she was living with her grandmother. Difficulties in application at school and the use of alcohol and cannabis led to the end of those living arrangements. The defendant was then essentially itinerant, staying with friends and at youth shelters. In 2015 she obtained employment at two different food outlets successively, but ultimately lost the second of those jobs due to what had then become an entrenched drug habit. That led to an increase in her drug use. She was addicted to crystal methamphetamine, and was stealing to fund the habit. This situation existed at the time of this crime. Dr Hope’s report suggests a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder as the preferred diagnosis over one of anxiety/depressive disorder. However, Dr Hope says there is nothing in the defendant’s presentation which indicates the presence of any major mental illness or a clinically significant cognitive impairment, but she does have difficulty regulating her emotions and impaired ability to engage in adaptive problem solving, which means making poor decisions. I am told that the reason for the extreme dislike of Mr Garwood came from a time when they were both doing community service, and were working at the same location. It was put that he sexually harassed and propositioned her for sex, and generally acted towards her quite inappropriately. After they were no longer in each other’s company, he sent her explicit photographs of himself and requested reciprocation, which she resisted. She lived in the unit with her boyfriend and Mr Garwood is said to have been abusive to both of them. In the period leading up to this incident, the defendant’s state of mind was such that I am told she made a genuine suicide attempt by drinking brake fluid and taking a large amount of medication. Her boyfriend called emergency services and she underwent a prolonged period of treatment and recovery. She has been in custody since 22 December 2018, as I have noted, and I am told that in that time she has taken advantage of drug counselling services available to her in the prison and she is feeling the benefit of being alcohol and drug free. Her good behaviour in gaol has been rewarded by a change in accommodation.
Arson is a crime that is difficult to detect, and one that causes concern in the community. This crime involved public housing. Obviously any form an attack of this magnitude on property has to be regarded seriously and the conduct condemned by a heavy penalty. Apart from the damage and inconvenience general caused, emergency personnel are put at risk when responding, as are other road users. The intention with which the crime is committed is important. This was not a reckless act, but an intentional setting fire to the building driven by hatred and possibly by a degree of retaliation. Whilst I accept that there was no intention that the whole unit be destroyed, the defendant’s actions were highly reckless in relation to that outcome. Fortunately no one was injured, and I note that the closest building at risk was in fact the defendant’s own unit. I take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances as I have outlined them and as they are further explained in the reports. I take into account that she voluntarily went to police and made admissions, and I take into account the plea of guilty to the indictment.
Ms Bessell, I have set out what I see to be the relevant considerations in your case. You are not a first offender. The seriousness of what you did calls for a term of imprisonment but I take into account your background mental health difficulties and drug addiction. Your difficulties with Mr Garwood, although not at all trivial, could have been dealt with in other ways. A term of imprisonment is necessary, but I propose to give you some relief from it given your age and personal circumstances. There are also signs of your rehabilitation, and that needs to be encouraged. I will provide you with support by way of the supervision of a probation officer upon your release. You are convicted of the crime and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, to commence on 22 December 2018. The execution of six months of that sentence is suspended on condition you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years, and I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served seven months of the balance of the sentence. That is an effective immediate term of imprisonment of seven months, backdated. I make a community corrections order* for a period of 12 months commencing on the day of your release. Special conditions are that you undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency, submit to testing for drug use, and submit to medical, psychological or psychiatric assessment or treatment all as may be directed by a probation officer. You will have to report to a probation officer at 57-59 Oldaker Street, Devonport within two clear working days of your release from prison. Lastly I make separate compensation orders in favour of Housing Tasmania and Simon Garwood for amounts to be assessed, and I adjourn the further hearings of those matters to dates to be fixed.
[*Crown counsel subsequently pointed out to his Honour the provisions of s 17(2A) of the Sentencing Act, introduced on 14 December 2018. As a result, on 17 April 2019 his Honour vacated the community corrections order, and ordered that it be a condition of the suspension of the six months of the sentence that the defendant be under the supervision of a probation officer for 12 months commencing on the day of her release from prison. As further conditions of the suspension, his Honour imposed the reporting condition and conditions in the same terms as the “special conditions”, as had been made part of the vacated community corrections order.]