STATE OF TASMANIA v EMILY KATE KING 22 APRIL 2024
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE BLOW CJ
Ms King has pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully setting fire to property, one count of burglary, and one count of stealing. Her pleas of guilty to the first three charges were entered in the Magistrates Court on 9 March 2023. The stealing charge was adjourned sine die at that time, but I am dealing with it now under s 385A of the Criminal Code. The charges relate to crimes committed by other people, instigated and abetted by Ms King.
The victims of the crimes were a couple named Christopher Kline and Rebecca Kline and a company they controlled, Concrete Tas Pty Ltd. In the beginning that company was controlled by two couples – a Mrs and Mrs Minehan and Mr and Mrs Kline. At some stage Mrs Minehan left her husband and apparently ceased to be involved in the company. Ms King has been in a relationship with Mr Minehan since early 2021. The business relationship between Mr Minehan and the Klines deteriorated during 2021. On 10 December 2021 they caused him to be removed as a director of the company. It had been named JDM Concrete, but its name was changed to Concrete Tas Pty Ltd.
At around that time Ms King contacted a Mr Booth asking him if he would undertake property damage on her behalf. She said that she would need the jobs to be done while she and Mr Minehan were out of the State. On or about 14 December 2021 she sent Mr Booth messages giving him the home address of Mr and Mrs Kline in Snug and pictures of their house. She asked him to cause as much havoc as possible, to burn down their caravan, and to go back later and burn their Hilux vehicle.
At about 2.30am on 15 December 2021 Mr Booth and a Ms Donoghue travelled to the Klines’ home in Snug with a can of petrol. They decided not to burn the caravan because it was too close to the house. Mr Booth smashed a window of the Hilux, threw petrol in, threw in the empty can, lit a lighter, and threw it into the vehicle. The vehicle and its contents were destroyed. The damage resulting from that fire has been assessed at $84,726.
Ms Donoghue and Mr Booth contacted Ms King and told her that the job had been done, but that they did not burn the caravan because it was too close to the house. She sent Mr Booth $500 at 2.43am. She then asked them to do another job.
The next morning, at about 2.30am, Mr Booth and Ms Donoghue drove to the business premises of Concrete Tas Pty Ltd in Cambridge with another can of petrol. Mr Booth smashed the glass door of the premises, gained entry, and stole a diesel heater, a welder, and a radio. He placed those items in his vehicle. He then smashed a window of an Izuzu truck, threw petrol into it, threw the empty can in, lit a lighter, and then threw that in. The vehicle burst into flames. Mr Booth and Ms Donoghue ran back to their vehicle and drove away. The fire spread and caused significant damage to the business premises and contents. The damage resulting from that fire has been assessed in the sum of $503,848.69.
At 2.44am Mr Booth sent Ms King a message saying, “Done”. At 6.24am he sent her another message saying, “Trucks fucked and I grabbed whatEva I could but it was still going on when I drove back past last night lol”. Police officers recovered the welder and the radio from Mr Booth’s vehicle on the afternoon of 16 December.
Ms King was arrested on 16 December and taken to a police station where she participated in an electronically recorded interview. She made detailed admissions. In particular, she told the police the following things. She had never met Rebecca or Chris Kline. She knew that Mr Booth needed money. She organised for the car to be burnt out and for the business to be “done” but she did not ask for the business to be burnt. She asked for it to be chaotically trashed. She targeted the Klines’ car because what they had done to her partner was “fucking horrible” and she responded in the only way in which she generally reacts, which is “violence or anger”. She decided to do this while she and Mr Minehan were in Queensland together as she thought it was the perfect opportunity. She paid Mr Booth $1,000 in two transactions of $500 each.
I have been provided with a victim impact statement by Mr and Mrs Kline. Quite apart from the financial consequences of the crimes committed against them, they had very upsetting experiences in the middle of the night on two consecutive nights. On the first night, they had to wake their 13 year old son, and were screaming at him to get out of the house with his pets. That experience appears to have had a lasting psychological impact on him.
Ms King was 26 years old when these crimes were committed and is now 28. She has no significant prior convictions. She has three children. The older two, aged 12 and 7, are not in her care. The third is a baby now aged 7 months, a child of Mr Minehan.
Ms King had a terrible childhood. In particular, she was physically, sexually and emotionally abused by a number of people. She has mental health problems, apparently contributed to by the childhood abuse. She has been diagnosed as suffering from complex post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder.
Amongst other things, the symptoms of those conditions include problems with emotional regulation, strong attachments to individuals, and periods of intense anger. She instigated and encouraged the offending against Mr and Mrs Kline because of feelings of intense anger related to her perception of how they had treated Mr Minehan. She was still angry when she was interviewed by the police, and now regrets things that she said in anger.
She regrets this offending. She had hoped that Mr and Mrs Kline would attend Court when she last appeared before me and had given her counsel instructions to read out an apology, but they did not attend on that occasion. She accepts that the impact of the fires on them would have been extreme. She also accepts that she should have taken a few days to calm down instead of taking action against them.
It appears that her mental health has improved following changes to her medication a few months ago. She is now receiving professional assistance from a private psychologist weekly and from a psychiatrist every three weeks, as well as taking a depot injection once per month .
If I were to send Ms King to prison, that would result in a prison experience that would be more difficult for her than for most prisoners, for a number of reasons. Her treatment by the psychologist and the psychiatrist would be interrupted. Her mental health would no doubt get much worse. She would be very anxious about the impact of her absence on her baby and Mr Minehan. He now operates a trucking business. I expect he would be unable to both operate his business and look after the baby if she was in prison.
Because of the likely impact of imprisonment on Ms King I ordered a home detention assessment report. I have now received that report from a probation officer. Ms King is considered unsuitable for home detention, but that is primarily because of the likely impact of home detention on her mental health.
I have to sentence Ms King for instigating and encouraging the commission of crimes that resulted in over $580,000 worth of damage. No penalties other than imprisonment or home detention would be appropriate. Imprisonment would be likely to cause a greater deterioration in her mental health than home detention. It has been submitted to me by the prosecutor that I should not sentence Ms King to home detention because of the sentence that I imposed on Ms Donoghue. I sentenced her to 3 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. There are a number of points of distinction. First of all, although both suffer from complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and I was told that Ms Donoghue had traits like the symptoms of borderline personality disorder, I think that it is clear from the psychological report in Ms King’s case that her mental health problems contributed to her commission of the offence and therefore lower her culpability. Second, Ms Donoghue at the time of sentencing had a child who was 3 years old, who would be going to her mother, who was a person in ill health. In this case, Ms King’s child is only 7 months old and therefore being deprived from that child is likely to be a greater source of worry and the likely impact on the child is perhaps greater. It is one thing for the offender who is sentenced second to have a sense of grievance if his or her sentence is heavier than the offender sentenced first. This is the reverse situation. I have to impose a sentence that I consider to be appropriate for this offender. Ms Donoghue appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that the sentence that I imposed on her was towards the heavier end of the spectrum of appropriate sentences. Having regard to all those factors, I think that the more appropriate course is to make an order for home detention. I will take the unusual course of making a home detention order even though the offender has been said to be considered unsuitable for that sort of penalty.
The relationship between Ms King’s mental health conditions and her offending means that she is not as blameworthy as someone with no mental health problems. There are other significant mitigating factors including her cooperation with the police, her early pleas of guilty, her remorse, and her desire to apologise. However the impact of her offending was extreme, and I will therefore impose a period of home detention that is close to the maximum. I will also make an order for the performance of some community service.
Emily Kate King, I convict you and make a home detention order for an operational period of 16 months from tomorrow. That order will include conditions. The home detention premises will be at [address stated]. The core conditions of the order are contained in s 42AD(1) of the Sentencing Act 1997. They will have effect for the full 16 months. They include s 42AD(1)(g) which requires you to submit to electronic monitoring. For the purposes of the condition contained in s 42AD(1)(c), I specify that you must during the operational period be at the home detention premises at all times on each day of the week unless you are not there for a relevant reason as specified in s 42AD(4).
The order will also contain the following special conditions, all of which will apply for the operational period of 16 months:
- You must report to a Community Corrections officer at Community Corrections in Hobart for the purpose of induction no later than 10am tomorrow.
- You must maintain in operating condition an active mobile telephone service, provide the contact details to a Community Corrections officer, and be accessible for phone contact through that service at all times.
- You must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer.
- You must not take any illicit or prohibited substances including any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 or any medication containing an opioid, benzodiazepine, bupropion hydrochloride or pseudoephedrine unless you provide written evidence from a medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication.
- You must not allow anyone to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purposes of electronic monitoring.
I make a community correction order to operate for 12 months from tomorrow, with a condition that during that period you must satisfactorily perform and complete 50 hours of community service as directed by a probation officer or a supervisor.
I make compensation orders in relation to each of the following claimants: Rebecca Kline, Christopher Kline, Concrete Tas Pty Ltd, QBE Insurance Group Ltd, CHU Underwriting Agencies Pty Limited, Hobart Property & Securities Pty Limited, and NTI Limited. I adjourn each assessment of compensation sine die.