[ad_1]
The Supreme Court has now ruled that Harrison’s explanation was plausible and overthrew his conviction.
On October 24, 2017, a fire tore “The Music Workshop” in Kerikeri, destroying a seven bays shed full of a lifetime collection of sound equipment and music owned by Anthony ‘Tony’ Harrison.
Harrison, a technician known on the music scene, was accused and declared himself innocent of two accusations of criminal fire.
The crown claimed that it lit the fire to claim insurance, but his lawyers argued that he had no reason to burn, as the business was thriving with fully reserved shows for the season and healthy bank accounts.
The first two attempts at a jury trial were abandoned after the jury’s foreman gave up on the first day, and then a fire brigade witness did not disclose evidence.
After long delays with Covid and the large volume of evidence, a five-week judge trial started at the Kaikohe District Court in 2022 before Judge John McDonald.
Judge McDonald considered Harrison guilty and sentenced him to 10 months of detention at home.
Harrison continued to maintain the fire was not illuminated and resorted to the conviction.
In a recently released Supreme Court ruling, Judge Laura O’Gorman ruled that an abortion occurred for several reasons.
The evidence of CCTV were produced at the trial showing Harrison and his wife entering and leaving the shed moments before the fire began.
At 12:47 pm, the smoke was visible floating under a roller door, while Harrison and his wife left a vehicle to travel to Auckland.
The crown presented that this was circumstantial evidence, as Harrison was “walking with purpose.”
Justice O’Gorman disagreed.
“Although I agreed that Mr. Harrison was walking on purpose, I would not describe him as ‘hastily coming out.’ His rhythm was in the context of the time pressures of his Auckland commitments.
“My assessment is that this factor has no evident value,” she said.
Three experts gave evidence in the trial, but only one concluded that the fire was deliberately lit.
Although the other two experts could not conclude that the fire was deliberated, Judge O’Gorman found that Judge McDonald did not explain why greater weight was given to the evidence of only one expert over others.
The focus of the trial was boiled down to the use of flaxseed oil, which Harrison said it was commonly used in the industry to clean the equipment.
This was the case of defense that flaxseed oil could burn spontaneously, which is what they said caused the fire. The crown argued that this was not possible.
Harrison proved that on October 22, a bowl of flaxseed oil was spilled by her child. He cleaned him with rags that were placed in a plastic bag and left in a corner.
Harrison’s wife proved that she observed the spill while three other witnesses told court that they had smelled a rotten smell in the days before the fire and compared it to the flaxseed oil smell.
In the decision of Judge McDonald, he concluded that the history of flaxseed was “unworthy of belief” and implied that his wife lied to follow Harrison’s reason to obtain insurance.
However, Judge O’Gorman disagreed and said the errors were made in his wife’s interrogation and flaxseed explanation was not implausible.
“Lim never had the opportunity to respond to such allegations, which was unfair to the applicant.
“I consider that this is a mistake that cannot be explained by the judge’s written reasons, because there was no express finding that Lim had lied and, therefore, no analysis of why the judge rejected his evidence about these aspects.
“My assessment is that these explanations were potentially plausible, so that it remained a totally credible possibility that Harrison and Lim were telling the truth about flaxseed oil spill.
“If the judge had not rejected the evidence and, taking into account the other factors such as circumstantial evidence and signs of incorrect probability reasoning, I think there were reasonable doubts, so that abortion of justice occurred.”
Harrison’s conviction was annulled and Judge O’Gorman ordered it was not in the interest of justice to order a new trial.
Under some circumstances, a person who had his conviction annulled or annulled by the court may request compensation for the time he was arrested as a result of this unfair conviction. Harrison fulfilled a detention sentence at home of nine months.
Compensation is at the discretion of the government and may include payments for each year of detention, subsistence loss, time spent on restrictive bail and assistance for reintegration in the community.
Harrison did not want to comment when contacted by NZME.
By Shannon Pitman
[ad_2]
Source link
