‘Pathetic figure’ guilty of arson

Press, 8 May 1985, Page 13

‘Pathetic figure’ guilty of arson

A sickness beneificiary who was described in evidence and counsel’s address as a pathetic figure was found guilty by a jury in the District Court yesterday of wilfully setting fire to hay:

The hay was in a hayshed on property owned by the Christchurch Airport Authority, near Wairakei Road, and the offence occurred shortly after midday last December 19.

The fire was said to have caused damage of about 543,000 destroying the shed, two large covers and 6900 bales of hay. The defendant, Laurence Terence Hardman, aged 31, had denied the charge. After the jury’s verdict of guilty, reached after a retirement of an hour, Judge Pain remanded the defendant on bail to May 28 for a probation report and sentence.

Miss K. P. McDonald prosecuted and Mr E. Bedo appeared for the defendant.

The airport authority’s farm manager, Clifford John Marsh, said in evidence yesterday that the hay was valued between $30,000 and $35,000 at the time, and would have a much higher value now. The haybarn would cost more than $BOOO to replace, and two large covers would cost $6OO to replace.

Police evidence was that the defendant was seen standing near the fire, watching it, while firemen fought the blaze. He was taken to the airport police office for questioning by Detective R. L. Battersby. The defendant told the

detective he had nowhere to live and had slept near a shingle pit the previous night. He had a sleeping bag, three bottles of beer, and a small bottle of methylated spirits.

In a written statement taken by Detective Battersby the defendant allegedly said he had slept overnight near a shingle pit and had consumed some beer and the remainder of a bottle of methylated spirits he carried.

He went to the haybarn to smoke a cigarette, and thought he could sleep there that night. He lit a cigarette but his hand begun to shake and he dropped the cigarette lighter and the straw began smoking and caught alight. He “could not be blowed” picking up the lighter. He said everybody had been getting at him and he though he would get back at them. He referred to problems with family members.

His statement said he hoped he “would be caught for this more or less.” He waited at the golf course until the Fire Service arrived.

He said he did not go to the hayshed to light the fire. It was not in his mind when he went there. There was about two inches of hay on the ground. He went to stamp out the flames but it spread too quickly in the wind. He offered to help firemen but they said they did not need help. Cross-examined, Detective Battersby said he became aware the defendant could not read or write

when he asked the defendant to read back the statement. He had then read it to the defendant.

The detective agreed that the defendant had at first stated that the fire was accidentally lit, but he had continued interviewing him because he was not satisfied about the cause. The detective said he had not suggested to the defendant that he had lit the fire to get back at people.

He had said he thought the defendant needed help. Asked why he made this comment, he said that anybody who drank methylated spirits and had no fixed abode, needed help.

The defendant had then broken down and told of his reasons for lighting the fire, said Detective Battersby.

In evidence the defendant said that while he lit the cigarette his hand began shaking from drinking so much methylated spirits. He could not hold his cigarette, and dropped it. He left it from between 15 seconds and a minute and it began smoking and he panicked and went over to the golf course.

He said he could not remember why he had told the detective about problems with some family members. Cross-examined the defendant said he had separated from his wife last year and was still upset about that. He said he did not deliberately light the fire. He would not have waited for the Fire Service and the police to arrive if it had been lit on purpose. Also, he had intended sleeping in the hayshed that night.