A sentence of four years' imprisonment for attempted arson motivated by insurance fraud, causing over $174,000 damage to third-party property in a shopping centre, was held by the majority not to be manifestly excessive. The case illustrates the limited utility of comparable cases in arson sentencing where the circumstances differ significantly, and the importance of the fraudulent insurance motive as an aggravating factor. The dissent would have found the sentence manifestly excessive by reference to R v Robertson and imposed three years suspended after 15 months.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.