AG v Michel 08-Dec-2020 [2020] JRC 254A (08 December 2020)

JUDGMENT THE Commissioner: 1. The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of arson. The defendant whose erratic behaviour had been the source of serious concern for her neighbour, Mrs X who occupied the flat above that of the defendant who occupied the ground floor flat.

2. At around 10pm on the evening of the 18 th May 2020 the defendant set fire to the curtains in the ground floor bedroom of her flat and had attempted to set fire to the curtains in her lounge. The fire was seen by two passing members of the public whose prompt actions we wish to commend in that they immediately called the fire service. The defendant was seen in her flat pacing about with no sign of any urgency to get out. One of them, entered through an unlocked door and after initially ignoring him the defendant left the premises saying, she was alone and there was no one else . Noting that there were two doorbells he rang the bell of the other flat just in case. Mrs X was going to bed but on hearing the commotion outside and her doorbell ring she went downstairs where she saw a lot of smoke and became aware of the fire.

3. When the fire service arrived, the fire was visible from outside. It was contained in the bedroom but was developing. The smoke layer was some two feet from the floor. The fire was quickly extinguished but extensive damage had been done which will cost the landlord some £21,000 in repairs and there is also a further loss of rent. We are informed that all of these losses will in fact be covered by insurance.

4. The Fire Investigation officer noted that whilst there were fire alarms in both flats, they were not linked so that only the ground floor alarm was ringing. If the fire had been started later that night, there would have been a significant risk to life.

5. The defendant was found to be highly intoxicated, swaying and not making sense and unable to walk unassisted. On arrest and later in interview she admitted starting the fire. The defendant has been psychologically assessed as presenting with Alcohol Dependence Syndrome and Avoidant Depressive and Paranoid Personality Disorder with some symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, though not to diagnostic levels.

6. The psychologist recommended that she be provided with support to address her alcohol use in order to stabilise her current situation where she is motivated to maintain abstinence. She will however be vulnerable to a lapse on her release and will require assertive relapse prevention at that time. The psychologist also recommended that the defendant be offered psychological therapy for her personality difficulties in the context of her childhood trauma.

7. In March 2020, the defendant had been the subject of a mental health assessment which said she presented a significant fire risk to others as she smoked and had disconnected her fire alarm, although we note it was sounding when this fire was started. It was not clear to the psychologist what intervention was done as a result, but she recommended that the defendant engage in fire safety awareness work.

8. The Social Enquiry Report says the defendant has yet to engage in any meaningful psychological intervention whilst in prison despite repeated attempts. As the report says finding accommodation for her on her release is going to be difficult. The report also says the defendant would benefit from bereavement counselling having suffered significant bereavements over the years.

9. She has no previous convictions and is assessed at a low risk of harm to herself and others when sober, but when intoxicated she poses a risk of significant harm to herself and others in the vicinity of a drunken tirade or fire setting, whether by design or default. The Social Enquiry Report does not consider the defendant suitable to undertake community service due to her emotional instability coupled with her arthritis.

10. In Coutanche v AG [1989] JCA 106 , the Court of Appeal considered that the general tariff for malicious setting fire to a property of another was three to five years and that tariff has been applied or referred to in a number of cases since then including: AG v Fortun 2002/205, AG v Dewhurst [2007] JRC 098 , AG v Corbel [2010] JRC 151B , AG v Faulkner [2011] JRC 046C , AG v Faria [2016] JRC070A and AG v Leahy [2020] JRC 124 .

11. The Crown points out that it was very fortunate that passers-by intervened so quickly enabling the fire service promptly to put the fire out. If the fire had spread, it could have led to a major incident and a significant risk to life. The distress caused to the neighbour Ms X has been considerable as made clear in her two victim personal statements which we have read. Despite the mitigation available to the defendant the Crown has moved for a sentence of three years for this offence.

12. In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty and admitted promptly to this offence. As we have said, she has no previous convictions, but we note that she has been in custody some 28 times in order to protect herself. Advocate Dix has made it clear and we accept that there is substantial personal mitigation available to the defendant and she has genuine remorse for what she has done. She has had mental health problems going back many years as we have mentioned, although she has not been diagnosed with a mental disorder requiring treatment that might have been the subject of a Treatment Order under the Mental Health Law.

13. This is a serious offence for which there is no alternative to a custodial sentence, but in view of the substantial personal mitigation available we can reduce the sentence slightly. The defendant assures us through her Advocate that she does now intend and will engage with the psychological treatment recommended for her at the prison and the Probation officer tells us that on release she will be supported through the Probation Department and JMAPPA. It is obviously vital that she does receive support when she is released, both in terms of finding accommodation and preventing alcohol relapse. We hope that she is able to find voluntary work as she herself has expressed.

14. Ms Michel, if you would like to stand please. You are sentenced to 2 years' and six months imprisonment. You can sit down again.

15. The Crown also seek a Restraining Order in favour of the neighbour, Ms X who has suffered greatly in the time she was occupying the flat above that of the defendant, and we have the power to make such an Order under Article 5 of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harrassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 for the purpose of protecting Ms X from conduct of the defendant which if carried out would be likely to cause Ms X to be in fear of violence against her. Under Article 5(5) of that Law such orders can be for an indeterminate period. Such an order is not opposed by the defendant and we will grant such an order but for the limited period of 3 years from today. In our view a longer Restraining Order would not be proportionate.

16. Finally, in relation to the possibility of deportation, the defendant is not a British citizen and is susceptible therefore to deportation. The Crown take the view that the first part of the test in Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462 is met, in that her continued presence in the Island would be regarded as detrimental but in terms of the effect of deportation upon her and her convention rights the Crown note that she has been in the Island for 45 years and indeed married during that period and therefore do not seek a recommendation for her deportation. We agree with that stance and therefore no recommendation is made in that respect. Authorities Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 Coutanche v AG [1989] JCA 106 AG v Fortun 2002/205 AG v Dewhurst [2007] JRC 098 AG v Corbel [2010] JRC 151B AG v Faulkner [2011] JRC 046C AG v Faria [2016] JRC070A AG v Leahy [2020] JRC 124 . Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462 Page Last Updated: 13 Jan 2021 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII