Sentencing — arson — burglary — being unlawfully in a building — art theft — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 27 & 38 — Meha v R [2014] NZCA 307 — Ollerenshaw v R [2010] NZCA 32 — Reed v Police [2016] NZHC 3097 — R v Z CA13/00, 27 June 2000 — R v Lucas-Edmonds [2009] NZCA 193, [2009] 3 NZLR 493 — Waenga v Police [2016] NZHC 1712 — Martin v Police [2016] NZHC 2094 — R v Turner [2016] NZHC 754 — Shingleton v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2010-409-72, 1 July 2010 — R v H DC Rotorua CRI-2018-069-1223, 6 March 2020 — Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507 — E v R [2011] NZCA 13 — Shailer v R [2017] NZCA 38 — Carr v R [2020] NZCA 357 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296. The defendant appeared for sentence on charges of arson, burglary and being unlawfully in a building. Together with others he had entered a residential address that was used for holiday accommodation, and had stolen a range of items including an art collection worth more than US$250,000. The defendant later returned to the address, which was unoccupied at the time, and set it on fire in an attempt to hide the evidence of the burglary. The fire completely destroyed the property. The aggravating features of the offending were premeditation, motive (to destroy the evidence of another crime), the extent of the loss caused (more than $2 million), and placing firefighters in danger. Given the lack of a tariff case for arson sentencings, the Court examined a range of authorities on both arson and burglaries and arrived at a global start point of six and a half years' imprisonment. The Court added a three-month uplift for offending while subject to a sentence, and then made discounts for matters set out in the cultural and psychologist's reports and for guilty pleas. The final sentence was five years' imprisonment. Judgment Date: 24 September 2020.