Supreme Court Accused Found Guilty On Arson Charge

Press, Volume C, Issue 29673, 17 November 1961, Page 11

Supreme Court Accused Found Guilty On Arson Charge

William John James Millar. aged 21, a driver, was found guilty by a Jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of committing arson by wilfully setting fire to a *J ou » e by Arthur George Whitfield at 98 Ferry road on the evening of September 9. Mr Justice Richmond remanded the accused in custody for sentence on a date to be fixed. The jury took 65 minutes to reach its verdict The trial opened on Wednesday, when Crown evidence was heard. The defence case and counsel’s submissions were heard yesterday. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented « U LOU***™. Mr R T. Mahon appeared for the Crown. Defence Case _Mr Lougtoan, outlining the defence case. Mid the accused would say the statement be made to the police admitting having lit the fire was untrue. He was not in the house when the fire was lit; he was along the road at 71 Ferry road, where he boarded, and was getting ready to go out for the evening. When be heard the fire engine go past and then stop nearby, he went along to watch the fire. Mr Loughnan said that if the accused’s evidence was accepted it must be accepted in the face at his statement to Detective Rodgers in which he admitted lighting the fire. If there was a doubt that the accused lit the fire then he must be given the benefit of the doubt. The accused, in evidence, said he was with three other young persons at 71 Ferry road before the fire broke out. He had a meal and while getting ready to go out for the evening he heard the fire engine. He and one of the others, Rex Young, ran out to watch the fire. The accused said he was questioned by Detective Rodgers at the police station, and • asked several times if he ' had lit the fire. He kept de- , nying that he lit it , Detective Rodgers asked ( him if he had any worries, ( and he said his mother and , father were sick and that • his girl friend had broken , off their engagement about , a month before, the accused said. « He said he then burst into > tears. This was after he had j been at the police station < an hour and a half, and De- , tective Rodgers was still « questioning him about the fire. , The accused said he did t not want to make the staement to the police but was 1 told it would be better to t get it off his chest 1 The accused said he read s the statement to see if there i were any mistakes. It was t full of mistakes, but he c signed it t Cross-examination j Cross-examined by Mr ‘ Mahon, the accused said he 1 told Detective Rodgers that Young could support his ’ story about their having 1 been at their boarding place when the fire broke out Asked how no mention was made in the statement about Young, the accused said he did not put It in the statement Mr Mahon: Why did you not ask Detective Rodgers to put it in? Accused: He never asked me. | Why did you tell all the j “lies’* in the statement ad- 1 mitting having lit the fire?— i I was a bit upset at the c time. I said I had been in t the bath at the time. That [ was the truth but he would not believe me. Then I told j him a lot of ties which he a typed down. i Rex Young gave evidence 1 that while waiting for his i turn in the bath he went to 1 a shop to get some soap, and c noticed the fire. He told the s

- shopkeeper to ring the fire s brigade, which arrived when ehe was returning to his i boarding place. He went i back to the fire and saw the » accused there, along with r other persona who had gath- < ered at the scene. Mr Loughnan. in his final submissions, said none at the . Crown witnesses could shed . any light on whether it was . the accused or anyone else who lit the fire. The only , evidence on which the Crown relied to establish the ac- . cused’s guilt was his state- . ment in which he admitted . lighting the fire. Mr Loughnan said the ac- . cused was questioned for an hour and a half, and only I after Detective Rodgers I touched on a “raw spot”— the accused’s broken engage- ; ment—did he break down and cry, and then make his statement which was the only shred of evidence which ! the Crown had against him. Mr Loughnan asked the ■ jury whether it was to ac- : cept the statement made ! after the accused had burst i into tears, or the evidence ■ he had given on oath deny- [ ing the offence. ‘ The accused was low in’ ! intelligence, and might say! ' anything under the strain of questioning, irrespective of. ' the consequences, Mr Lough--1 nan said. 1 Mr Mahon said the evidence of Young alone was sufficient to show that the i accused’s story was a fabrication and that his statement 1 to the police was the true account of what happened. I ' t i i 1 1