Masterson, R v

A sentence for reckless arson must reflect the foreseeable danger to neighbours, rescuers and the public, even where no one is injured. Particular weight may attach to multiple seats of fire, the risk of an explosion, and the risk of spread in terraced property.

Mitigation includes an early guilty plea, prompt admission, lack of relevant convictions and the absence of a fascination with fire. Financial and emotional stress ordinarily attracts limited weight, and voluntary intoxication attracts none. A sentence which overstates the proper balance of those factors is manifestly excessive and may be reduced on appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to reckless arson, being reckless as to whether life was endangered. On 20 January 2009, Northampton Crown Court sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment, less time spent on remand.

He had set four fires in his mid-terraced home after drinking heavily and arguing with his girlfriend. Gas taps had been left on, creating a serious risk of explosion. The fire put neighbours, rescuers and fire officers at risk, although no person was in the house when it was set.

He appealed with leave on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was reduced to four years’ imprisonment, less time served on remand.

2. The offending was grave. The appellant set four separate fires in a mid-terraced house with a common roof void. He knew that neighbouring households, including children, were likely to be asleep. The unignited gas hob created a serious and unpredictable risk of explosion which could have killed or seriously injured neighbours, fire officers, rescuers or members of the public.

3. The fire was discovered fortuitously. It required intervention by the fire service and exposed the appellant’s girlfriend and others to danger. Without intervention it would have spread within the property and potentially to adjoining houses.

4. Against those features, the appellant had no relevant convictions, no fascination with fires, and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He also returned to the scene and admitted responsibility. The financial and emotional pressures affecting him attracted only limited weight because such pressures are common in this type of offending. His voluntary drunkenness attracted no mitigation.

5. Having balanced those matters, the court concluded that the original sentence was not merely severe but manifestly excessive. A term of four years, subject to credit for remand time, was the proper sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appellant’s sentence appeal and reduced the term from five years and six months to four years’ imprisonment, less time spent on remand.

• Northampton Crown Court: On 20 January 2009, sentenced the appellant to five years and six months’ imprisonment, less time spent on remand, following his guilty plea.