SUPREME COURT Jury disagrees in arson trial

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32637, 19 June 1971, Page 18

SUPREME COURT Jury disagrees in arson trial

After deliberating for more than four hours and a half, a jury in ,the Supreme Court late last evening could not reach a verdict on a charge of arson against John Bede Lagan, aged 43, a company manager. Mr Justice Wilson discharged the jury and ordered that the accused be retried at the sitting beginning on July 5. '

The foreman of the jury told his Honour that there was a doubt and his Honour said that if there was any doubt the accused should receive the benefit of it. The foreman said there appeared to be no hope of reaching a unanimous verdict. Lagan, represented by Messrs B. McClelland and W. H. McMenamin, had pleaded not guilty. Messrs P. G. S. Penlington and G. K. Panckhurst appeared for the Crown.

Continuing his evidence, yesterday morning, Lagan said that on the evening of the fire he was away from his home for less than half an hour. He worked on his books until about 9 p.m., when he watched the news on television and the comedy which followed. Some time after the news Mr Walsh, a grocer, who lived next door to the Hills Road house, telephoned him, and he drove to the house. He was unable to park outside the house and stopped in the nearest available spot in Avalon Street, at the foot of Hills Road, the accused said.

On police instructions he gave details to a constable seated in a car. The constable advised him to notify his insurance company of the fire. After being at the house for at least 20 minutes he went home because he was in his shirt sleeves and was cold. Police visit

When the police arrived at his home he mentioned to Detective Smart that he had been looking after his children. The detective did not ask to see any of the children or to look through the house, but searched outside and in the car.

Detective Smart said something to the effect that he had been recognised as the person who had gone into the house in Hills Road. The accused told him that his informant must have been mis-

taken, because he did not stop at any stage.

Detective Blumberg served a summons on him in March, 1971. He was surprised and asked the detective why he had not completed his inquiries and checked with the children. The detective told him that it was a matter for his superiors. The accused said that he did not ask the police to interview his children when they came to his home on the night of the fire because he was innocent and he saw no reason to involve his family in something which was so distressing, especially to young children.

“I had no reason to set fire to the house,” the accused said. "I had every reason in the world not to' set fire to it. It was of value to me. I could have demolished it and used the materials or I could have sold it, as the council did with adjoining properties. This would have solved the problem of clearing the site and would have returned me some unknown sum.” It was not true that he set fire to the house because he was annoyed with council’s price. After negotiations he got the price he originally asked. He had not collected any money from the insurance company. Mr Penlington: Do you think it is strange that we should have the extraordinary coincidence that a man just like you, with a car like yours, should happen to be at a house in which you have got a halftinterest immediately before the discovery of the fire? The accused: I wouldn t know whether I consider it strange or not. He could have assumed a darkbottomed car and a lighttopped car. Character witness

James Warne Ardagh, a surgeon, said that he had volunteered willingly to come to court to give evidence about the accused’s character. He had known the accused for several years and hed met him on a number of organisations and committees. Over the years he had been increasingly impressed by the amount of work the accused did for these organisations.

By accident he had discovered the amount of work the accused had done privately for many persons in need or in trouble. Giving an example, the witness said that last year he lhad a patient, a youngish man

with a wife and a young family, who* was suffering from incurable cancer. At the time he was not aware that the accused knew the patient. When the man returned to hospital for his final two or three weeks of life he learnt from the patient’s wife that Lagan had arranged the whole financial and domestic situation and bad taken on his shoulders the arrangements that had to be made. That was of incalculable value and peace of mind to the dying man. Addresses by counsel

Mr Penlington said in his address to the jury that the accused’s character was not in question, and he conceded that the delay in bringing the prosecution was open to criticism.,

The accused, he said, had thought that he had found a cheap and effective means of clearing the house from the property at the expense of the. insurance company when time was running out for him to remove the building. “You can come to only one possible conclusion and that is that the per Son seen going into the house ■ before the fire broke out was the accused,” said Mr Penlington. “When you boil this case down it comes to one crucial matter was Mr Butler correct when he said he saw the accused go into the house before the fire?” said Mr McClelland. “The defence does not say that Mr Butler is lying but that he made a perfectly understandable mistake. He did what so many of us would do in the Circumstances. He saw the vehicle drive up and park outside the house and he naturally assumed that it was Mr Lagan who got out and went in.

“Mr Butler did not give one indication of how he recognised the accused. He did not walk across the road and take the number of the vehicle. He did not see the accused’s face and he did not say how the accused was dressed. He assumed that the person who got out of'the car was the accused.

“Would you convict a person of a serious crime with an identification made in those circumstances? Would you drive up to your own house at a quarter to nine on a Saturday night in your own car, and walk in with a can of petrol? If a person was going to set alight his house he would be mad to do that. This type of thing is done stealthily at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.,’’ Mr McClelland said.