Arson Offences (ACT)

Arson is an extremely serious offence that can also be very difficult to prove. In the ACT, there are several offences that a person can be charged with in relation to arson. This page deals with arson in the ACT.

The offence of arson

Under section 404 of the Criminal Code 2002, a person is guilty of an offence if they:

• cause damage to a building or vehicle by fire or explosive; and
• intend to cause, or are reckless about causing, damage to a building or vehicle.

This offence can attract a penalty of a fine of up to 1500 penalty units or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both.

Threat to commit arson

A person is also guilty of an offence if they threaten to commit arson if they intend or are reckless as to whether another person will fear that the threat will be carried out. This offence is punishable by a fine of up to 8000 penalty units or imprisonment for up to seven years, or both.

Causing bushfires

Under section 405 of the Criminal Code 2002, a person is guilty of an offence if they:

• intentionally or recklessly cause a fire; and
• are reckless as to the spread of the fire to vegetation on property belonging to someone else.

This offence can attract a penalty of a fine of up to 1500 penalty units or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both.

Jurisdiction

The offences of arson and causing bushfires are strictly indictable offences and must be finalised in a higher court after going through committal proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

Sentencing for arson

The vast majority of offenders who are found guilty of arson offences receive a term of imprisonment. This is because of the very dangerous nature of the offending and the ease with which arson can be committed.

Arson is a widespread problem across Australia, which sometimes has catastrophic consequences, such as during the ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires in Victoria in 2009. Brandon Sokaluk was sentenced to 17 years and nine months with a non-parole period of 14 years for 10 counts of arson in relation to the Black Saturday fires. Sokaluk was released on parole during 2024.

Case study

In 2023, the Supreme Court of the ACT handed down its decision in the matter of R v Carberry; R v Deng. The matter was a Crown appeal against the sentences received by two men for several serious offences including arson committed while they were in prison. The prosecution appealed on the basis that the sentences were manifestly inadequate.

The two men were sentenced for an aggravated robbery in the community, and for arson and property offences that occurred inside the Alexander Maconochie Centre while they were on remand. Deng was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment for the arson offence and Carberry to 38 months imprisonment. As the offence occurred while the men were in prison, no non-parole period could be set.

The arson offence consisted of Deng lighting an item of clothing with a cigarette lighter and leaving it inside a cell, after which Carberry set alight some toilet paper and placed it in the Officer’s Station through a window. The two men continued to stoke the fire with toilet paper, clothing and towels until the Officer’s Station was engulfed in flames and the unit filled with smoke.

A number of detainees were concerned for their safety and the two offenders tried to prevent officers from extinguishing the fire. The fire was extinguished after ACT Fire and Rescue attended. However, the two men continued to light more items on fire in the open yard area.

The sentencing judge found the offence was a serious instance of arson as many detainees were fearful and a large amount of property was damaged. However, the appeal court found that the sentences imposed did not reflect the seriousness of the offending, which was motivated by anger and a desire to cause damage, and which continued over several hours. ACT Fire and Rescue had to be deployed and a significant part of the prison was unusable while repairs were taking place.     

The principles of deterrence and denunciation were found to be of particular importance as the offence occurred in prison and because arson is an easy offence to commit and can have tragic consequences. Accordingly, the appeal court increased the men’s sentences to four years and four months for Deng and four years and six months for Carberry.  

If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.