Alcoholic arsonist given jail term

Press, 3 November 1984, Page 4

Alcoholic arsonist given jail term

An alcoholic lit fires as an act of revenge and when angry and and refused to co-operate in the treatment of his condition, Mr Justice Quilliam was told in the High Court yesterday. His Honour jailed Mark Richard Williams, aged 32, a sickness beneficiary, for 11 months on a charge of arson.

Williams had pleaded guilty to the charge in the District Court after the taking of depositions. Evidence was given that Williams set fire to three sheds behind a City Mission halfway house in Hereford Street as an act of revenge because of an encounter he had earlier had with the occupants of the house, in the Doghouse in Cathedral Square. After going to a nightclub two men and a woman, occupants of the halfway house, went to Cathedral Square where they saw Williams lying on the ground in front of the Cathedral. He followed them to the Doghouse where Williams fondled the woman. When she objected one of the men pushed him away. When he was escorted out on to the footpath Williams said he knew where they lived and would firebomb their house. He took out a box of matches and held them up. On returning home the

group was later disturbed by a banging on the front door and was told that the sheds were on fire. Williams was found hiding in bushes over the road, and a fight developed.

Questioned by a detective, Williams admitted setting fire to carpet and rubber underlay in one of three adjoining sheds to “get back” at the occupants for what had happened at the Doghouse.

Mr E. T. Higgins, for Williams, said that unfortunately his client had again offended because of his problem with alcohol. On that night he had been drinking heavily and considered he had been hard done by by the persons living in the house during the confrontation in the Doghouse. As an act of revenge he set fire to one of three adjoining sheds which contained old property. Although one shed was destroyed there was no great risk to life.

In the past Williams had lit fires when frustrated and to bring attention to his problems, and once again had acted in that foolish manner.

Williams had a tragic family background. He was rejected by all his relatives and led a pathetic, lonely existence. Because of his S* *ems and limitations he it difficult to live without drinking alcohol to

excess. The Salvation Army had given him assistance and Williams had been in almost every type of institution in an effort to cure his drinking problem but without success. He had not cooperated and none of the institutions wanted him back, Mr Higgins said. His Honour said that Williams was a tragic and difficult case. He had a long history of uncontrolled alcoholism and had been involved <in acts of arson and other anti-social behaviour. It might well be that all that stemmed from Williams’s birth and_ upbringing but that Was of little comfort to his victims. Although anxious to take whatever course would assist Williams, he was left with no alternative to a sentence of imprisonment. Unhappily Williams had shown no sign of willingness to co-operate with the various authorities who had tried to help him. i „

While imprisonment was obviously an inadequate sentence, it was not the easy? Way out but the only sensible course left open to him, Msi Honcut- said. Having regard to Williams’s repeated offences, the term should be a long one but he thought he was- bound to have sorhe. regard for the fact that Williams had little ability to control his actions.