STATE OF TASMANIA v LUKE AARON HALES 6 MARCH 2026
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE SHANAHAN CJ
Mr Luke Aaron Hales, you were convicted by a jury on a single count of arson contrary to s 268 of the Criminal Code 1924 following your trial on 15 October 2025. The matter has since come before me on 1 and 8 December 2025 for submissions on sentence. Part of the delay in sentence has been driven by the Court’s desire to clarify your suitability for community supervision. Sentencing has also been delayed due to your illness on 26 February 2026.
The particulars of the offence were that on or about 23 January 2024, you unlawfully set fire to a dwelling situated at Rokeby, owned by Mission Australia.
You were born on 13 October 1982 and are currently aged 43 years, you live at premises very close to the complainant’s home, and that is a relevant consideration in respect of prospective sentencing options, in particular whether a home detention order is an appropriate disposition.
The trial in this case focused on the evidence of the complainant, [name redacted], and the lies or inconsistencies in statements made by you to police recorded on body worn camera footage and in your recorded record of interview.
The jury’s verdict means that it accepted each element of that offence had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows, due to the nature of the directions to the jury, that they accepted the evidence of the complainant, as do I for the purposes of sentence.
Equally central to the case put to the jury by the State, were two lies said to have been made by you to police, recorded in the body worn camera footage on the morning of 23 January 2024, which was exhibit P-3 on the trial.
Those statements were firstly that when answering questions from Constable Goodluck, you stated “I’ve been in bed for four hours” which was said by the prosecution to (i) contradict what you told police in your edited police interview, and (ii) were made to deny that you had an opportunity to commit the offence charged. Second, was the statement you made in response to a question put by Constable Goodluck, “What paperwork? I haven’t been anywhere near the house mate, I’ve been in bed all night”. That statement is also said to contradict what you told police in your edited police interview and made to deny you had an opportunity to commit the offence charged, or that you approached the house in Rokeby at the material time. I accept that both were lies for the purposes of sentencing.
The complainant was born on 2 January 1951, he is currently 75 and was a 73 year old man at the date of the offending. He has lived at his home for some 30 years, he lives alone. Prior to this offending, he had provided you with his telephone number.
The complainant had gone to bed when he heard a window smash. By that time it was early morning. He got out of bed, put some clothes on, and went to investigate. He saw glass everywhere and the curtains, window and carpet were on fire. He tried to extinguish the blaze with water from the kitchen.
Before the complainant rang police, he received a telephone call. He identified you as the caller. He was familiar with your voice. During that telephone call you made threats toward him and burning his property. You abused him and accused him of being a paedophile and a rapist, and said “I will get you”.
The complainant then rang police. The audio of that call was played on your trial. The complainant also received a text message at 12:35am on 23 January 2024, which he later provided to police. That text message read “Hey [name redacted], and I just woken up and was screaming your name, calling you a rapist and a paedophile and stuff. I don’t – whose?”
The complainant then said he later saw you in his driveway lighting a piece of paper, and he said you walked up to his house. At that time you said to the complainant “I’m going to burn your house down” and tried to re-light the paper. You had some sort of spray. The complainant said he had thrown water on the piece of paper and that you picked up the blockbuster and tried to bash down the door and then left.
Constable Goodluck attended the incident and rang the complainant. Whilst on his way, the complainant told him that you had returned to his house and that you were coming up the driveway. He told Constable Goodluck that you had set fire to his curtains.
When police arrived, an assessment was made by Senior Constable Damien McVilly that the complainant’s front living room window was smashed and fire damage was visible just inside the window frame. There was “alligatoring” to the window frame and significant smoke damage to the living room. I was able to view the damage during your trial by examining the photographs at Ex-6.
You made persistent attempts to damage the complainant’s house and you threatened him by phone and text. The complainant, an older man, must have been extremely anxious and very scared.
The Crown accepted that your criminal record indicates that the majority of matters are dishonesty and driving offences. There is some serious offending, but that is from a significant time ago.
I received a victim impact statement from the complainant. The complainant pointed out that whilst he did not suffer any physical injuries from the incident, the psychological trauma has had a profound impact on his life. He is, as a result, seeing a psychologist. He has really struggled to talk about how this offending has affected him. He is suffering from anxiety. The fire damage has been a constant reminder of the incident, and he re-lives the trauma. Months later he was still finding glass in the carpet. The events haunt him. He suffers from insomnia. He avoids going to sleep, because he is worried, and listening for noises. He feels constantly under threat. It is all exacerbated, he says, because you continue to live across the road from him. He says he is smoking a lot more as a result. He can not forget the incident and re-lives it when speaking to people or hearing noises.
This is different to how he was prior to the incident. He finds it hard to socialize and cannot escape from the anxiety and worry of running into you. Being located directly across from your residence is constant torture. He can hear you shouting at your children in the night, and it makes his heart rate elevated, and he feels very much under attack. He feels that this is never going to end, and his life will never be the same again, and that he will never be the same again.
The complainant’s house is social housing. It is unclear how realistic it would be for him to seek to move to alternative accommodation in an attempt to mitigate the results of this incident and its impact upon him.
Of course, that raises the question why the complainant should have to leave his home of over thirty years. The complainant’s mental health and concerns impact upon the efficacy of a home detention order. As I noted during sentencing submissions, such an order may force the complainant to spend even more time living next to you whilst you are present in your home, in the sense that you are required to be in your home for lengthy periods of every day.
I understand that at the time of sentencing submissions, you have been living in the area in a private rental for eight years. I was informed that you have completed a home detention order at that address in respect of other matters without incident. Of course, that is not the point. It is your proximity to the complainant following this offence and its impact upon him that is the difficulty. Certainly, that was the Crown’s position in sentencing submissions.
The pre-sentence report dated 25 November 2025, found you were unsuitable for community supervision and community service and for the reasons I have set out, there were issues in respect of the making of a home detention order. Indeed, of the home detention options you were found suitable for, options two and four, one which had little impact on your existing life style, except in the evening (which was option 2), whilst the other was more restrictive (option 4). Since that date, I have received an Addendum to the pre-sentence report based on a further risk assessment that makes you suitable for community supervision. I am greatly obliged to the Probation Officer, for this further advice.
The original pre-sentence report states that you have had a stable upbringing, having positive relationships with both parents, especially your mother. At that time you reported having three children of whom you have full custody aged 9, 10 and 16. I understand that at that time your eldest son was in Ashley Youth Detention Centre but may, by now, be released on bail. Your children have had no contact with their biological mother since 2017. Strong Families Safe Kids reported no current involvement with you or your children. Community Corrections continues to have some concerns, but they are reduced as a result of advice from SFSK. Your last report of family violence was a family argument in 2023, now at least two years ago.
You reported that your current partner was your neighbour with whom you have been in an “on and off relationship”. You were educated to year 9 at Rose Bay High School. You have completed a storeman’s certificate and have a forklift and truck licence. You have been unemployed for the last five years. You reported some prospect of employment stacking shelves at night, however this is on hold whilst these proceedings are on foot.
You have previously reported being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and anxiety but your mental health was stable at the time of interview with Community Corrections. You have a history of using methamphetamine and cannabis. You have now been prescribed medicinal cannabis. You have been on an opiate replacement therapy for two years. Tasmanian Health Services confirms that you receive 16 mg of Suboxone every two days from Rosny Eastlands.
The explanation you gave Community Corrections for the events constituting your offending, were entirely inconsistent with the jury’s verdict and suggest a lack of insight and remorse. During sentencing submissions I pointed out that such reports are not an opportunity to express doubt about your conviction. I am to sentence you for the offence of which you have been convicted by a jury. You reported to Community Corrections that you were intoxicated at the material time.
In mitigation it was pointed out that you and the complainant have been able to live near each other since these events, now over two years ago. That submission does not take into account the suffering identified by the complainant in his victim impact statement, especially his anxiety and inability to sleep.
It was put that you would benefit from community supervision and your counsel expressed some surprise that you were found unsuitable for such a disposition. Of course, the addendum of 19 December 2025 now alters that assessment and I acknowledge that despite the high level of intervention required, you have been assessed as suitable for community supervision. It was put that supervision associated with a home detention order in respect of another matter has been beneficial.
It was accepted that your prior convictions demonstrate dishonesty and substance abuse. I was told that community supervision has not yet targeted your substance abuse. It was confirmed that you were a reasonably heavy cannabis user before being prescribed medicinal cannabis, and you liked to have a drink occasionally. In your younger years you were using opioids, and I was told you have been on harder drugs. I noted your continuing use of Valium. Further, you refused to see a GP who was not going to prescribe Valium. As noted, you were intoxicated at the material time.
I was told during sentencing submissions that you were then about to go into a conciliation conference for damages as the complainant in a historic sexual abuse matter. I was told that abuse is the foundation, or the root of your problems with substance abuse and drinking.
The closest that counsel came to identifying a process by which you and the complainant could engage in an attempt to reduce his anxiety was pursuant to directions given by a probation officer.
I am not prepared to make a home detention order given the complainant’s position and the lingering concerns of Community Corrections in respect of your family relationships, despite your apparently successful completion of such an order at your current address. Your completion of that order does not speak to the issues suffered by the complainant who was the victim of your offending.
Luke Aaron Hales, I convict you on a single count of arson, contrary to s 268 of the Criminal Code. Offending of this type is very serious, not only because of its impacts on victims as we have seen here, but also the risk it poses to others in residential areas and first responders. It has been condemned by this Court, and it almost invariably attracts a period of immediate imprisonment.
Your conduct was repetitive, aggressive and dangerous. It was frightening for the complainant and it was accompanied by threats against the complainant.
I note your extensive use of a range of illicit substances over many years and the fact that you were intoxicated at the material time. You appear to lack some insight into your offending and its impacts on the complainant. The fact that there has been no incident between you since the date of the offending does not mean that the complainant has not suffered in silence, as reflected in his victim impact statement.
At the sentencing hearing you had three children in your custody, one whom was 17, and with the prospect of another son being released on bail from the Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
However, the nature of your offending means that a term of immediate imprisonment is necessary to express the need for general and specific deterrence. I impose a single sentence. I sentence you to two years’ imprisonment but suspend the execution of 12 months of that term on the condition that you commit no offence punishable by imprisonment. In respect of the term of actual imprisonment, I order that you be eligible for parole after nine months. Your sentence will commence today.
I also make the order suspending the execution of the balance of 12 months of your sentence subject to the supervision of a probation officer under s 24(2) of the Sentencing Act in which regard I make the following community corrections order.
I make a community corrections order under s 42AN of the Sentencing Act which will commence upon your release and operate for a period 12 months. This means you will be subject to the supervision of a probation officer. That order will include all the core conditions under s 42AO of the Sentencing Act and the following special conditions, that is that during the operational period of the order:
- you must submit to the supervision of a probationary officer as required by a probation officer;
- you must attend educational and other programs as directed by a probation officer;
- you must undergo assessment and treatment for drug dependency as directed by a probation officer,
- you must submit to testing for drug use as directed by a probationary officer;
- you must not consume alcohol;
- you must submit to testing for alcohol use as directed by a probationary officer;
- you must undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol dependency as directed by a probation officer, and
- you must submit to psychological or psychiatric assessment as directed by a probation officer.
You must attend at the Hobart office of Community Corrections at 75 Liverpool Street within two working days of your release in relation to the commencement of the supervision order.
By sentencing you to a term of actual imprisonment and making the supervision order pursuant to s 24(2), I acknowledge the seriousness of your offending. I have suspended half of this sentence and imposed community supervision to ensure that you receive the help you need to address your use of illicit substances. It is always up to you what use you make of that opportunity. If you breach the conditions of the order suspending 12 months of your sentence, you can be returned to the Court for re-sentencing and may be required to serve the balance of the term of imprisonment.