[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Bal, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1434 (13 June 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1434.html Cite as: [2009] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 52, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 52, [2008] EWCA Crim 1434

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		13th June 2008

1. JUDGE LORAINE-SMITH: On 11th January 2008 at the Crown Court at Warwick this appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of arson being reckless as to whether life is endangered, and to an offence of failing to provide a specimen for analysis committed under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. He was remanded in custody and on 8th February 2008 he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Harris to 4 years' imprisonment for the arson and 3 months' imprisonment concurrent for the offence of failing to provide a specimen. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months and the time he had spent in custody was ordered to count towards sentence. He appeals against his 4-year sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. The facts were as follows. The appellant lived with his wife, Balbinder, and their two children -- a daughter aged 13 and son aged 17 -- in a three bedroomed, terraced house in Nuneaton. It was part of his routine to go out drinking on Sundays with a friend, and that is what happened on 30th December 2007. He returned home at about 10 pm. He was very drunk and was to tell the police in interview that he had drunk nine pints of lager and a double whiskey. An argument began between the appellant and his son, in which Mrs Bal intervened. The appellant, who by now was very angry, said he was going to throw his son out of the house. His son ran out.
3. The appellant then called the police. He told the Probation Officer that he had done that so that they would tell his wife off. The police arrived and Mrs Bal agreed that it might be better if they left the house for a while to let things calm down. Accordingly, she went to a relative's address nearby.
4. The appellant, left alone at home, was angry about what had happened and decided to set alight to some of his wife's property. He found some of her clothing in the front bedroom in a cupboard and set it alight with a cigarette lighter. He also lit a second fire in a rear bedroom wardrobe but it did not take. At 11.45 he sent a text message to his wife which in fact she did not receive. It read "I have set the house on fire". He then left the house and drove to the address where his wife was temporarily staying. He parked diagonally across the drive, threw away his keys and banged on the door. The police were called and arrived at midnight. They found the appellant to be drunk and aggressive. When arrested he said "I set the house on fire". In the police car he said "I lit it. I do not deny it. I started it in the bedroom" In the police station he asked if he could go to his house because he wanted to see it burn.
5. In interview he said he had set fire to his wife's clothing in anger and that he expected the wardrobe and the rest of the house to burn down. Knowing that he had driven from his home the police requested two specimens of breath which he refused.
6. When Mrs Bal returned to their home she found the upstairs windows were black. There was burnt clothing on the driveway and the curtains in their daughter's bedroom were blackened. In the main bedroom all of her personal property and that of her children seemed to be missing or destroyed and there were holes in the wall and ceiling. The fires had extinguished themselves naturally and had not spread to the neighbouring properties.
7. Mrs Bal said in a victim impact statement that she felt very upset, vulnerable and scared as a result of what happened. A statement from her was presented to the court which was far more sympathetic to her husband.
8. When interviewed by the Probation Service, the appellant said that he had started the fires because he felt very frustrated and angry at his wife's behaviour, particularly her refusal to speak to him. He apportioned much of the blame for what he had done to her and it would seem from a report prepared for this hearing that his attitude has not changed.
9. The appellant is 42 with a burglary conviction when he was 16, and so he was treated by the sentencing judge as being of good character. He pleaded guilty to these offences at the first available opportunity.
10. Miss Sarginson submits that the proper sentence in this case is one of 3 years' imprisonment, not 4. She relies on two authorities in particular. The first is Attorney General's Reference No.5 of 1993, R v Hartland [1994] Cr.App.R(S) 201, where the offender and his girlfriend were involved in a dispute over a taxi with a group of men, in the course of which the offender's girlfriend was knocked to the ground. The offender went in the early hours of the morning to a house where the other group lived and threw a brick through the window followed by a petrol bomb. The court noted that the relevant sentencing in other cases of this kind was something in the order of 3 years' imprisonment.
11. In Attorney General's Reference No.35 of 1996, R v Hoyle [1997] 1 Cr.App.R(S) 350, BAILII: [1996] EWCA Crim 1037 , the offender was the tenant of a flat and fell into arrears in the rent. Following a number of letters to the landlord, he returned late at night to the flat and started a fire by placing matches against an electric fire. Although the fire was quickly discovered, about £2,000 worth of damage was caused. The court held that a sentence in the order of 3 years would have been appropriate.
12. Miss Pierpoint for the respondent has drawn our attention to R v Harding [2000] 1 Cr.App.R(S) 327, BAILII: [1999] EWCA Crim 1902 . The appellant in that case had also, when drunk, had an argument with his wife who was taken away from the family home by her brother, leaving the appellant alone. He then lit fires in several rooms, causing £17,000 worth of damage to that house and also £3,000 worth of damage to the property of a neighbour, an 85-year old lady who must have been terrified. A sentence of 4 years was upheld.
13. There was no evidence as to the cost of the damage in the present case, but it was limited to the appellant's home. His neighbours, far from being terrified, wrote a letter in his support to the court. With those authorities in mind, we agree with Miss Sarginson's submission that the appropriate sentence is one of 3 years' imprisonment and we allow the appeal to that extent.