Careful arsonist warned ‘imprisonment next time’

Press, 20 December 1986, Page 4

Careful arsonist warned ‘imprisonment next time’

A diminutive youth who lit a series of fires in a rubbish container, a warehouse, derelict houses and a “portable loo" took elaborate precautions to see that these were not occupied before he set them ablaze. Mr Justice Tipping was told in the High Court yesterday.

Kevin Michael Edwards, aged 19, a gardener, had singed eyebrows and lashes and his eyes were gleaming with excitement when he was apprehended while watching a fire in an unoccupied house next to the Hagley High School on the afternoon of November 21.

A first offender, Edwards told Detective Sergeant G. Scott that he had a “fascination for flames.”

Edwards, who admitted eight counts of arson, was sentenced to nine months periodic detention, put on supervision for 18 months and was ordered to take psychiatric treatment. When apprehended, Edwards boasted to the police: “In case you don’t know who you are dealing with — they call me the Addington arsonist.” His counsel, Mr Tony Garrett, said that was not true, because there had been further fires since his arrest.

The police statement said that the fires were lit by Edwards between October 13 and November 21. He was apprehended while among onlookers at the fire in Hagley Avenue. He was taking a keen interest in the efforts of the firemen to put out the blaze.

Interviewed at the Central Police Station, Edwards admitted that he

had set the house alight with an accelerant he had found in a shed there. He described how he had got into the house.

Questioned about other recent fires, Edwards admitted responsibility for eight and took the police to where the fires had been and indicated where each was started and how. These accounts were verified by police and Fire Service. The houses involved were old and derelict in the main, and were obviously unoccupied. There was no evidence that Edw’ards intended to harm anyone by his actions, and he made sure with the Hagley Avenue house that no-one lived there, the police statement said. Mr Garrett said that Edwards suffered from several health complaints as a child.

He had caring and supportive parents in Auckland and was going to return there to live with them. He had lived a somewhat itinerant existence after disappearing from home. In view of his handicaps, limitations and lifestyle, surprisingly Edwards had no previous convictions.

After being apprehended, he gave Detective Sergeant Scott every possible assistance and pointed out all the places where he had lit fires.

Once having started a blaze, Edwards would then attempt to put it out, but when he failed he would watch from a distance.

There was no guarantee that Edwards would not offend again, and from

the reports he was obviously in need of psychiatric treatment. He should never have left home, as in his present state he was not capable of surviving alone.

Edwards claimed that while he could remember being in the area, he had no recollection of actually lighting the fires.

He felt that he was in a trance at those times. He had always liked playing with matches and looking at flames.

While arson was always serious, the offending in this case was most unusual and obviously had a psychiatric background, Mr Garrett said.

For the Crown, Mr Mark Zarifeh said that the police accepted Edwards had taken precautions to see that no-one was endangered bv the fires he lit.

Mr Justice Tipping said that fortunately the fires had not spread and noone had been injured.

Arson was a serious crime which normally resulted in imprisonment because, although the premises might be empty, firemen or bystanders could be at risk.

Edwards was most fortunate in having parents who were standing by him and wanted to help him in his predicament. He should return to them.

“I very much doubt your claimed inability to recall actually lighting the fires as you were able to give the police a most detailed account of your activities and the locations of all offences.

Because of his age, good record, pleas of

guilty and need for psychiatric help, Edwards would not be jailed, but if he ever offended in this way again imprisonment would be inevitable.

He did not accept the probation report recommendation that periodic detention was not appropriate, Mr Justice Tipping said.