Alcoholism care ordered after $5960 shed burns

Press, 4 November 1989, Page 8

Alcoholism care ordered after $5960 shed burns

A man who burnt his neighbour’s lean-to shed and contents, causing damage of $5960, was committed for treatment at Kennedy Villa under provisions of the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Act, when he appeared for sentence in the District Court yesterday. The defendant, Ivan Keith Sutton, aged 50, an accident compensation beneficiary, also was placed under supervision for a year, and was ordered to pay the loss suffered by the complainant, $5960, in weekly instalments.

Judge Hattaway told Sutton that alcohol had clearly caused his troubles.

He noted, as had Sutton’s counsel, Mr Mervyn Glue, that Sutton’s condition and appearance had improved markedly in the month since his trial. In that time he has been in custody undergoing assessment and awaiting a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report. Sutton had been found guilty by a jury after his trial on a charge of

wilfully setting fire to a shed and contents, which included a motorcycle belonging to his neighbour, Colin Thomas Melhopt. At the trial the Court heard evidence of arguing between the neighbours, which came to a head on April 21 when Mr Melhopt taperecorded at the fence the arguing that took place there. That evening his shed was burnt, and another neighbour said he saw Sutton throw a lighted object over the fence beforehand.

Sutton denied setting fire to the property, and said he considered it must have been caused by electrical leads to the shed. The defence contended that there had been a set-up between the two neighbours to implicate Sutton, whom they did not. get on with. Mr Glue, in his submissions, sought Sutton’s committal for treatment for alcoholism, as recommended in the reports.

He said he had been astounded by Sutton’s quite incredible im-

provement in health and appearance, from his one month’s abstinence from alcohol.

Sutton acknowledged that alcohol was to blame for his problems.

Counsel said the trial gave the strong impression that antagonism was by no means a one-sided matter.

He said arrangements had been made for Sutton to vacate his flat, and he would no longer be in the area which was the source of the trouble.

Mr Glue said the fire had posed no risk to life, and was more in the nuisance category. Mr Brent Stanaway, for the Crown, said he took issue with the remark that the fire was a nuisance value offence. It was a serious offence that cost $6OOO damage to the complainant’s prized possessions.

The fire had caused concern to the complainant, and he was not insured for the loss.