Arsonist put on supervision

Press, 10 February 1988, Page 13

Arsonist put on supervision

Because he considered that he had been wrongfully ejected from the Gladstone Hotel at 3 a.m., a man broke a bar window and then returned later and set fire to a curtain and threw a chair threw another window, Mr Justice Holland was told in the High Court yesterday. Anthony Peter Rodda, aged 23, a plastics worker, was put on supervision for two years on a charge of wilfully setting fire to the Gladstone Hotel when he knew there was a danger to life, and two charges of intentionally damaging windows.

Rodda had pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court and was committed by Judge Erber to the High Court for sentence. He was also committed for sentence on a charge of possession of cannabis, but that was sent back to the District Court.

For Rodda, Mr John Halls said that his client had been involved in an altercation at the hotel and although he was not the aggressor had been ejected. Rodda had been going through a very traumatic time and had been suffering from depression. He had been unable to cope with pressure in a rational way.

Next evening Rodda had returned to the hotel and admitted what he had done. It was his first appearance in court and he

was making reparation with an automatic bank payment of $4O a week, Mr Halls said. Mr Justice Holland said that arson was a serious offence which could be dealt with only in the High Court. An aggravating factor in this case was that Rodda committed the offence when he knew there might be danger to life.

The normal sentence for such an offence would be a substantial term of imprisonment. Arson was becoming prevalent in circumstances of this kind, where persons who had felt some sense of grievance, and built up by the combination of drugs and alcohol, decided to get their own back either on society or some other person by burning a building and often causing tremendous damage.

“You are fortunate this fire was detected before substantial damage was caused and even more fortunate that the fire was detected before the people sleeping in the hotel were at real risk for their lives,” his Honour said.

Rodda did not appear to realise the seriousness of his offending. He could not help his depression by simply resorting to alcohol. It was a waste of time to direct people to take counselling for alcoholism. They had to recog-

nise that they had a problem and be prepared to do something about it.

“Before anything can be done to assist you you have to recognise you have a problem and I hope you appreciate that if you do not do so you are an awful, evil man because unless what you did can be explained because of your depression and alcohol consumption you simply — regardless of the safety of anyone — set out to burn a building in which there were occupants,” said his Honour.

It was clear that Rodda could not cope because of what he had done. He was desperately in need of help.

“I am going to take a big risk on your behalf by not sending you to prison. I find it significant that you offered to make reparation before it was discussed with you by your counsel. That shows some degree of contrition,” his Honour said. He was further influenced by the fact that Rodda went back to the hotel and admitted what he had done. Because he had a previous clear record, he was entitled to a chance. Rodda was ordered to make reparation of $2343 by weekly payments of not less than $4O and he was ordered to take counselling as directed by his probation officer.