‘Chasm of doubt’ in arson trial

Press, 7 December 1988, Page 33

‘Chasm of doubt’ in arson trial

PA Auckland A gaping chasm of doubt existed whether Charles Rex Hill had instigated the arsons of two Duty Free Shoppers’ buildings, his defence counsel, Mr Peter Kaye, said in the High Court at Auckland. He told the jury in his closing address they had to boot the evidence of key defence witnesses out the window before they could find Hill guilty as charged. In their hands lay the future working life of the former managing director of Compass Duty Free. “You have to decide not whether you are suspicious, cynical, or whether something stinks about this case,” Mr Kaye told the jury. “You have to be sure whether he is an arsonist and a thief. “That is blunt. “It is hard to imagine he could go much lower

— from managing director of his own baby, Compass, to jail.”

He said two men, Christopher Brown and Reuben Honan, had already been imprisoned for their part in the arsons, while a third, Lawrence Frederick Doyle, had got off scot-free. The Crown alleges Brown, Honan, and Neil Arthur Clayton set fire to the Duty Free Shoppers’ warehouse in Mangere and its retail store in Albert Street on January 29 this year. The three worked on the instructions of Doyle, who was paid by Hill, the Crown prosecutor, Mr Aaron Perkins, claimed. Hill was the alleged No. 1 operator who wanted to knock back his main business rival, Duty Free Shoppers. Doyle received immunity from prosecution after co-operating with

police and recording conversations allegedly with Hill through a concealed monitoring device.

Mr Kaye said that to say Doyle had a lucky break, as suggested by the Crown, was the understatement of the year. The defence alleges Doyle was the instigator of the arsons and set up Hill to cast blame on him.

“It is a setup of his best friend — the person who gave him (Doyle) money, a job in the past and from that the food to feed himself,” Mr Kaye said. “Now he drops Hill right in it. He has to. It is either him or Hill.”

Mr Kaye urged the jury not to be influenced by Crown evidence that Hill, under the name Patrick Dennis Williams, fled Australia in 1970 when due to face criminal charges for fraud.

At the very least, Hill

had kept his nose clean for the last 20 years and had done very well for himself in the process.

Hill, aged 52, of Gratia, and Clayton, aged 33, a floor-sander of Glendene, both face two charges of arson.

Hill also faces a charge of stealing $18,500 from his former employer, Compass, while Clayton faces a separate charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

Both men have denied the charges, and face trial before Mr Justice Gault and a jury. In his summing up, Mr Justice Gault warned the jury not to jump automatically to conclusions that, merely because an accused person had brushed with the law in the past, he must be guilty of offences now.

Mr Justice Gault said such evidence of a person’s past was of very

narrow use and was primarily brought to judge character. He also advised the jury not to be prejudiced against Hill because he did not give evidence from the witness box.

He said there was no onus on an accused person to prove his innocence.

Defence counsel for Clayton, Mr Steve Cole, said Clayton would never have been brought to court if his basic rights had been respected. Mr Cole alleges Clayton gave a false incriminating statement to police after his family was threatened by police officers. The Crown alleges Clayton drove Brown and Honan to the arson scenes.

Mr Justice Gault told the jury there was a serious conflict of evidence in this case and they would have to resolve the clash.