Arson charge trial

Press, 11 July 1979, Page 4

Arson charge trial

A businessman, aged. 47, who is alleged to Ijave counselled or procured' an unnamed person to deliberately set fire to his Christchurch

home, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial at the end of the lower court hearing of the charge yesterday. Mr N. L. Bradford, S.M.. after hearing depositions of 24 prosecution witnesses over two days, said the evidence was sufficient to commit the defendant for trial. He continued the interim suppression of his name. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, that on January 2, together with a person or persons unknown, he deliberately set fire to his dwelling. Mr N. W. Williamson conducted the prosecution case and Mr R. J. Gilbert, of Dunedin, appeared for the defendant.

The Magistrate continued the interim suppression of the names of two witnesses, and certain passages of evidence. He remanded the defendant on bail until his Supreme Court appearance. In evidence yesterday, Detective Trevor Barry Gaskell said he interviewed the defendant on February 8 in re-

gard to the fire. The defendant said his financial situation was the “lowest in five years.” Mr Gaskell said he told the

defendant rhe whole surrounding circumstances were suspicious with the tenant away, the defendant in Auckland, and the defendant in debt. The witness told the defendant he stood to have the house reinstated to the value of $232,000, or possibly a cash adjustment from the insurance company of between $90,000 and $160,000. A few items had also been scattered around “to give the impression of a burglary.” He told the detective he had $40,000 owing to him and had never been “desperate” at any time. He had worked hard all his life for his house, and money could not buy that back. Challenged by the detec-

tive that there did not seem much of real value in the house for the $66,000 worth of contents insurance, the defendant told him that items lost in the fire came to about $30,000 and the replacement value would be around $45,000. The defendant told the detectives he owed $13,000 in

I tax for the last couple of [years, and a first mortgage of $lOO,OOO. He had $15,000 'of his own money in his 'house. • The defendant said nis mother-in-law could verify that he had stayed in Auckland for the whole time between December 27 and Janluary 3. Detective Constable Michael John Neild gave evidence of investigating the fire and finding a tin and three plastic containers in the house. One of the containers had some liquid inside, and smelt of petrol. The defendant told him he had been unable to ascertain if anything had been stolen from the house, apart from a movie camera which had been taken from a bedroom. Mr Gilbert called no evidence. He submitted that not one “tittle” of evidence had been produced by the prosecution to show a conspiracy to burn down the house.

The police had accepted that the defendant was in Auckland at the relevant time. There was no evidence or suggestion of a connection between him and any other person in relation to the fire, Mr Gilbert said the defendant had co-operated with the police, but had denied any involvement.

It had been clearly admitted by prosecution witnesses that the whole basis of the replacement insurance was fairly and properly undertaken by the defendant, and a valuation made. Mr Williamson said in his final submissions that the charge was one of being a party to arson, rather than one of conspiracy. Being a party to the offence called for evidence, either direct or circumstantial that a person had encouraged aided, abetted, or invited some person to commit an offence.

Mr Williamson asked the Magistrate to consider the cumulative effect of all the evidence and to conclude, at least to a prima facie standard. that the defendant was a party to the offence.