STATE OF TASMANIA v RICHARD WAYNE SHREEVE 6 OCTOBER 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant, Richard Shreeve aged 54 at the time of the offending, has pleaded guilty to one count of arson and one count of unlawfully setting fire to property. At the time of the offence, the defendant occupied a property owned by Mission Australia Housing, at 1/31 Gardenia Road, Risdon Vale.
The defendant is the nephew of Cyril Fitzpatrick. At the time of the offence, Mr Fitzpatrick resided at 7 Spinifex Road, Risdon Vale, a property also owned by Mission Australia Housing. On Friday 27 January 2023, Mr Fitzpatrick received a text message from the defendant, whereby the defendant invited Mr Fitzpatrick to “have a beer” with him. Mr Fitzpatrick declined the invitation.
At 6.30pm, Mr Fitzpatrick and his wife attended an address in Risdon Vale. The defendant also attended the property and approached Mr Fitzpatrick whilst he was seated in his vehicle at that address. The defendant made a punching gesture at Mr Fitzpatrick whilst he was still seated in the vehicle. The defendant then walked towards the house. Mr Fitzpatrick got out of his vehicle and tried to stop the defendant. The defendant attempted to hit Mr Fitzpatrick but did not make contact with him. He then left the property.
At approximately 7.00pm on Friday, 27 January 2023, the defendant drove his blue Holden utility to 7 Spinifex Road. He got out of his vehicle and picked up a red fuel tin from inside. He poured accelerant on the grass, which was situated across the entire length of the driveway. He then doused the front door of the property in accelerant. The defendant threw the red fuel tin on the ground near the front door. He used a cigarette lighter to ignite the accelerant. The defendant returned to his vehicle and left the address.
At 7.15pm, Mr Fitzpatrick (who had not been home at the time), received a text message from a phone number being used by the defendant. The text message read “Ya house is burning ya FN dog.” At 7.23pm, a further message was received which read “Dead man.”
The fire did not take hold of the house and only minor damage was caused to the property, including charring on the front door and smoke damage to the door. The approximate cost of the damage was $7,037.80.
At approximately 7.25pm on the same day, the defendant was outside his own home. A member of the public observed the defendant walking around the street waving a sword, whilst yelling and screaming and at about 7.30pm, Tasmania Police received a report of a man who was seen walking and waving a sword in the air on Gardenia Road.
The defendant walked inside his house. Whilst in the lounge room, the defendant started a fire using a cardboard box and a cigarette lighter. The fire took hold and engulfed the unit. The defendant walked outside of the house and threw items from outside onto the fire.
Police attended the address and observed flames coming from the back door of the unit. The defendant was located in the back yard of the residence. Police asked the defendant to come away from where he was but he refused and told police he wanted to die. Police jumped over the fence and were able to escort him out of the yard with the assistance of a neighbour. He was arrested and taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital for treatment in relation to smoke inhalation and for a mental health assessment.
The unit was completely destroyed by the fire and the estimated cost of the damage caused was in excess of $217,500. The unit next door also suffered smoke damage.
The defendant was granted bail on 2 March 2023. He thus spent 35 days in custody in relation to these charges. This was the first period that he had spent in custody in approximately 14 years.
The Crown makes application, pursuant to s 68(1) of the Sentencing Act 1997, for a compensation order in favour of Homes Tasmania in respect of 7 Spinifex Road Risdon Vale and 1/32 Gardenia Road, Risdon Vale, in an amount to be assessed. I make that order and adjourn the assessment to a date to be fixed.
In his victim impact statement, the complainant has stated that the defendant is his nephew and he loves him. That does not excuse what he did, but he had had a particularly hard time, says the complainant. His mother was terminally ill with cancer and he was her carer. There was damage but it was not structural. The black smoke marks had to be washed and cleaned but that did not affect the complainant personally from a financial perspective. The complainant wants the defendant to get help and says that he will help him with that.
The defendant has no prior convictions for offending of this nature. He is aged 54. He is single with one adult son, aged 32, from a former relationship. Prior to the offending he had lived for eight years in the unit, which is the subject of the charge of arson. His mother suffers from terminal lung cancer. He was her primary carer before the offending and though they lived separately, he spent most of his time at her home. He has continued to act as her carer since his release.
He describes his father as a “violent drunk” and he witnessed, and was subject to, violence and abuse from his father. His parents separated when he was ten and, following this, he had no relationship with his biological father. His step-father began a relationship with his mother shortly after. He was a positive father figure until his death 16 years ago.
Though his mother and step-father were positive presences in his life, the defendant struggled with his early life trauma, stopped attending school after year 6 and was declared a ward of the State for his remaining childhood years. He was sexually and physical abused between ages 11 to 12 at Wybra Hall, which has had a lifelong impact on him. When back in the community, he began using drugs and alcohol heavily from this early age and began committing offences.
The defendant spent lengthy periods at Ashley Youth Detention Centre until he was first transferred to Risdon Prison at age 16. He served numerous periods of detention and imprisonment until his early twenties. Following his release from prison in the early 1990s, he then had a period of lengthy stability and did not spend time in prison for another 16 years. During this period he was employed, was not involved in drug use and though he committed some offences in 1999 and 2000 in Victoria, he did not return to prison until 2007.
The defendant committed two attempted aggravated armed robberies in one night in Tasmania in 2007. He was heavily effected by alcohol and methylamphetamines at the time. For some 15 years up until that point, he had been abstinent from illicit drug use but then he began spending time with people using drugs ,which saw him relapse.
Following his release in 2009, he again had a similarly lengthy period of stability and committed only driving matters until the present offending. During that period he led an isolated life where he did not use drugs or excessively use alcohol and he cared for himself and his mother.
The defendant has experienced depressive symptoms throughout his life and has been prescribed anti-depressant medication on and off for approximately 15 years. He was not prescribed medication in 2022, or at the time of the offending.
He had sought compensation through the National Redress Scheme in 2022 for the abuse he suffered as a child. He had not previously engaged in therapy or spoken to anyone about the abuse in detail as he finds it very difficult to trust others as a result of that abuse. He was re-traumatised by going through the redress procedure and recounting the abuse, and he fell into a deeper depression.
His depression was compounded by his mother’s diagnosis of terminal cancer around this time. He is reclusive and has difficultly trusting others. He struggles forming relationships and his bond with his mother had been the most significant influence throughout his life. Thus, he found her terminal diagnosis very difficult to contend with.
Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Mike Jordan, assessed the defendant in May this year and his opinion is that if he defendant had engaged with a doctor at that stage prior to the offending, he likely would have been considered clinically depressed.
With his worsening depression, he defendant engaged in some illicit drug use and excessive alcohol use, something that he had not done for many years. This exacerbated his depressive symptoms and impaired his decision making generally.
In the immediate period leading up to the offending, the defendant was engaged in a personal dispute with his Mr Fitzpatrick and his wife. The defendant felt that they were not contributing to his mother’s care and that they were generally being insensitive about the situation. On the day of the offending, the defendant had drunk a significant amount of alcohol and in his intoxicated state, he sought to confront his uncle at his house. The two men, as noted, had an altercation and the defendant recalls his uncle making an offensive comment to him about his mother. This caused significant distress for the defendant, and he became enraged and decided to commit the offence to send a message to his uncle as to how upset he was.
The defendant says that he knew no one was at home at his uncle’s property at the time he committed this offence, and he was not intending to place their safety at risk and was not intending to burn their house. He says that he immediately felt suicidal, upset with himself for what he had done and upset that he could not resolve the family dispute. Within approximately 15 minutes he had lit the fire in his own unit with the intention that it was cause his death. He lay down on his bed while his unit went up in flames, but he ultimately could not bear the heat and left. He was upset with himself that he had failed to bring about his death and was in a destructive and extremely heightened state, throwing items from the yard into the fire to destroy all his property.
He acknowledges the significant loss caused by his conduct and does not attempt to hide from the seriousness of his actions. I am told he is remorseful and has accepted responsibility through his early pleas of guilty. He has suffered personal significant loss as a result. The unit that was destroyed had been his home for eight years and he now does not have independent accommodation. Moreover, he had spent the entirety of the compensation payment he received through the National Redress Scheme on renovations and items for his home, which have now been destroyed.
In the almost five months since his release, he has not reoffended and has stabilised. He has not used any drugs and has significantly reduced his alcohol consumption. He remains depressed but is not suicidal. He has a positive focus on giving his mother the best care that he can.
Mr Fitzpatrick has taken an understanding and forgiving view of the defendant’s conduct. In a statutory declaration he said “We have had a very brotherly relationship, with very few issues between us.” He also said “This behaviour is totally out of character for [the defendant].”
The defendant relies on the opinion of Dr Jordan that the defendant would meet a diagnosis for major depressive disorder and personality disorders and suspected complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Dr Jordan opines that the defendant’s level of despair provides a context for understanding his offending.
Dr Jordan addresses the Verdins Principles in his report and the defendant relies on his view that a return to custody would be highly detrimental for the defendant’s mental health status, as well as his inability to continue his carer’s role with his mother, and that would be a significant factor in his mental state.
In a supplementary report, Dr Jordan clarified his opinion that there was a nexus between the defendant’s depressed state and his offending, in the sense that, noting his suicidal ideation and suicidal intention in committing the arson, it is to be inferred that the suicide attempt would give some insight into his level of mental health compromise at that juncture.
Whilst Dr Jordan’s opinion was not in support of a reduction or moderation of general deterrence as a sentencing consideration, I note the submission of the defendant’s counsel that the Court has considered such a course appropriate in at least one recent sentence in very similar circumstances to the present, involving an attempted suicide. In Ayden Terrence Nolan (25 September 2023) Justice Jago concluded that because the defendant committed the crime in an endeavour to end his own life, considerations of general deterrence and denunciation, which would normally weigh heavily in the sentencing exercise, take on a slightly lesser significance, and the person was not an appropriate vehicle through which to convey messages of general deterrence. I respectfully agree with her Honour and I accept that her comments are apposite in the present case.
Taking into account all of the circumstances, I am of the view that a period of home detention is an appropriate sentence. The defendant is convicted of each of the offences to which he has pleaded guilty and I make a home detention order for a period of 12 months.
The order will contain all of the core conditions contained in s 42AD(1) of Part 5A of the Sentencing Act 1997, with specific reference to s 42AD(1)(g) and (h) of the Act, the following conditions are added to the Order:
- you must, during all of the operational period of the order submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device;
- during the period that you are required to submit to electronic monitoring:
(a) you must not remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring;
(b) you must not allow anyone else to remove, tamper with, damage, disable or interfere with the proper functioning of any electronic device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring
(c) you must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to you in relation to the electronic monitoring, including in relation to the installation, attachment or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring by:
(i) a police officer;
(ii) a probation officer or prescribed officer; or
(iii) another person whose functions involve the installation or operation of a device, or a system, used for the purposes of electronic monitoring
The following special conditions are added to the Order:
- you must, during the operational period of the order, remain at [address redacted] all times unless approved by a probation officer;
- you must attend the Community Corrections office at Hobart for induction onto this order. You must attend this service for induction during normal business and no later than 10:00am on Monday of next week, today being a Friday;
- you must, during the operational period of the order, maintain in operating condition an active mobile phone, provide the contact details to Community Corrections and be accessible for contact through this device at all times;
- you must submit to the supervision of a Community Corrections officer as required by that officer;
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, take any illicit or prohibited substances. Illicit and prohibited substances include any controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 200; any medication containing an opiate, benzodiazepine, bupropion, hydrochloride or pseudoephedrine, unless you provide written evidence from your medical professional that you have been prescribed the relevant medication;
- you must not, during the operational period of the order, consume alcohol, and you must, if directed to do so by a police officer or Community Corrections officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol; and
- you must engage in targeted alcohol intervention as directed by a probation officer.
For the avoidance of doubt, this order commences at 10.00 am on Monday, 9 October 2023.