CHARGE OF ARSON

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 75, Issue 6442, 5 November 1947, Page 7

CHARGE OF ARSON

INTERESTING CASE IN SYDNEY “ EXCUSABLE AND CRIMINAL BURNING ” A Supreme Court case reported from Sydney in which the judge held that a charge of arson could not be sustained against a man who burned down his own house, unless there was intent to injure., has been commented on by a legal authority in Christchurch.

A man, aged 54 years, was acquitted at the Sydney Quarter Sessions on a charge of maliciously setting fire to his home with intent to injure. Acting-Judge Lamara said that in an arson case it was necessary for the Crown to prove intent to injure or defraud. That had not been done. Section 329 of the New Zealand Crimes Act, 1908, states: “Everyone commits arson . . . who wifully sets fire to any building, erection, or structure whatever fixed to the soil, whether surh building, erection, or structure is complete or not.” According to the Christchurch legal authority, it has been held, prima facie, that the words “any building” would cover a building whether owned by the offender or by anybody else. However, the provisions of Section 329 are subject to the modifications imposed by Section 328 of the same Act. Section 328 provides that nothing shall be a crime under any provision contained in Section 329 unless it is done without legal justification and without colour of right. Sub-section 3 of Section 328 provides that where the crime constitutes injury to anything in which the offender has an interest, the existence of such interest, whether partial or total, shall not prevent the act being a crime if done to defraud” added the authority. “ For example, it would be arson to set one’s own house on fire in order to collect the insurance money. The effect of Section 328 is to provide that even if the offender has the total interest in a property, being a crime if it is done to defraud. The intention of the offender setting fire to a property can make an excusable burn a criminal burn. However, if a man has legal jurisdiction and colour of right, he would not appear to be guilty of arson in setting fire to a house in which he had a total interest.”