R v Bolger [2018] NSWDC 285

R v Bolger [2018] NSWDC 285

The offender's deliberate lighting of the first fire and subsequent sustained deceptive insurance claim were serious offences requiring immediate full-time custody. The Court rejected the Crown's asserted aggravating factors of substantial loss, commission without regard to public safety, and substantial planning, but found the offences serious having regard to the damage caused, the dishonest attempt to obtain insurance money, the need for general and personal deterrence, and the absence of remorse or contrition. Because the two counts substantially overlapped in criminality, the sentences were imposed concurrently subject to totality. Special circumstances justified an adjusted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty on Two Counts
Outcome
Convicted on counts 1 and 2 and sentenced to a total term of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Damage by Means of Fire' 'dishonestly Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage' 'arson Related Sentencing' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'insurance Claim Deception']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dishonestly Damage by Means of Fire' 'dishonestly Attempt to Obtain a Financial Advantage' 'arson Related Sentencing' 'totality' 'special Circumstances' 'insurance Claim Deception']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty on Two Counts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for dishonestly damaging by means of fire the house and contents at 93 Johnston Street, Tamworth with a view to making a gain.' 'What sentence should be imposed for dishonestly attempting to obtain a financial advantage by falsely reporting the fire to be accidental and claiming damage on an insurance policy.' 'Whether the two offences involved overlapping criminality requiring concurrent sentences and application of totality.' 'Whether aggravating factors were established, including substantial loss, commission without regard to public safety, and substantial planning.' "Whether mitigating factors were established, including absence of significant prior criminal history, good character, prospects of rehabilitation, mental health issues, hardship to the offender's partner, extra-curial punishment, and special circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's deliberate lighting of the first fire and subsequent sustained deceptive insurance claim were serious offences requiring immediate full-time custody. The Court rejected the Crown's asserted aggravating factors of substantial loss, commission without regard to public safety, and substantial planning, but found the offences serious having regard to the damage caused, the dishonest attempt to obtain insurance money, the need for general and personal deterrence, and the absence of remorse or contrition. Because the two counts substantially overlapped in criminality, the sentences were imposed concurrently subject to totality. Special circumstances justified an adjusted...

Court Disposition

Convicted on counts 1 and 2 and sentenced to a total term of 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

Orders

  • ['On count 1, the offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years, consisting of a non-parole period of 18 months commencing 26 April 2018 and expiring on 25 October 2019, with a balance of sentence of 18 months expiring on 25 April 2021.' 'The Court directed that the offender be released to parole...