Guthrie v The Queen - [2011] NZCA 202

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA382/2010

[2011] NZCA 202

BETWEEN JAMES ROBERT GUTHRIE
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2011

Court: Harrison, Simon France and French JJ

Counsel: C M Ruane for Appellant
M D Downs for Respondent

Judgment: 27 May 2011 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

Introduction

Mr Guthrie appeals his conviction on four counts of arson. The grounds of appeal are that there was insufficient instruction to the jury on the possibility that Mr Guthrie may have committed some but not all of the offences, and second, that the summing up of Judge Callaghan was unbalanced and did not adequately deal with the defence case.
An appeal against sentence[1] was abandoned.

Facts

[1] R v Guthrie DC Timaru CRI-2009-076-56, 9 June 2010.

In the early hours of 19 December 2008, four fires were lit in or around Temuka. The first fire was to a utility vehicle. A can of petrol, taken from the back tray of the vehicle, was used to ignite the fire. The next three fires were to conifer trees on various properties dotted along the highway. One tree on each property was lit, seemingly by igniting junk mail.
Mr Guthrie, on the Crown case, could be directly linked to the first fire (the ute) and to the last of the three conifer fires. It was accepted that there was no known motive why Mr Guthrie, who was 44 years old and had no previous convictions, would light these fires.
Mr Guthrie had been drinking that evening at the Crown Hotel. CCTV footage showed him, throughout the evening, lighting cigarettes with a lighter. It seems he left the hotel just after midnight, intending to walk home to Geraldine. The fire to the ute happened about six minutes later. CCTV footage from a nearby store showed Mr Guthrie to have walked off in the direction of the ute, about four minutes before the fire.
The last fire, being to the third conifer tree that was attacked, was noticed by a truck driver, who saw a person wearing a white singlet and blue jeans walking away from near the tree. The driver pulled over 300 metres up the road and called the police. In the interim he kept an eye on the man he had seen. The police arrived and found Mr Guthrie, wearing a white singlet and blue jeans, about two hundred metres from the scene of the last fire. Based on timings of how long the fire service took to arrive and then extinguish the fire, together with the condition of the tree afterwards, it can be estimated that it had been burning for only one to two minutes at the time when Mr Guthrie was seen by the truck driver.
Mr Guthrie was arrested and taken to the police station. There was contested evidence of a conversation in the police car on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Guthrie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Guthrie v The Queen [2011] NZCA 202
Case: [2011] NZCA 202
Decision Date: 27 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by James Robert Guthrie against his conviction on four counts of arson. The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the grounds presented by Guthrie's counsel. The primary issues addressed were whether the jury was sufficiently instructed on the possibility that Guthrie may have committed some but not all of the offences, and whether the summing up by the trial judge was unbalanced and did not adequately address the defence case. Guthrie's counsel argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address the weaknesses in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the reliability of key witnesses and the absence of physical evidence linking Guthrie to all the fires. However, the Court of Appeal found that the judge had addressed all relevant points raised by the defence, and that the summing up was balanced and thorough. The court noted that the prosecution's case was strong, particularly regarding the last fire where Guthrie was seen near the scene, and that the evidence collectively pointed to a single perpetrator. The appeal was dismissed, and Guthrie's conviction was upheld.

The Court of Appeal considered the legal issues regarding the adequacy of jury instructions and the impartiality of the summing up in the context of Guthrie's arson convictions. The court examined whether the jury was sufficiently instructed on the possibility that Guthrie may have committed some but not all of the offences, and whether the summing up by the trial judge was balanced and adequately addressed the defence case. The court found that the trial judge had sufficiently covered all points raised by the defence, including challenges to the reliability of witnesses and the absence of physical evidence. The court also noted that the trial was conducted with the understanding that all fires were likely lit by one person, and that the judge had explicitly directed the jury not to conclude that the person who lit the conifer trees also set fire to the utility vehicle. The court concluded that the summing up was balanced and that the criticisms of the summing up were without merit.

The Court of Appeal found that the criticisms of the summing up were without merit and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge had adequately addressed all points raised by the defence, and that the summing up was balanced and thorough. The court noted that the prosecution's case was strong, particularly regarding the last fire where Guthrie was seen near the scene, and that the evidence collectively pointed to a single perpetrator. The court also found that the trial was conducted with the understanding that all fires were likely lit by one person, and that the judge had explicitly directed the jury not to conclude that the person who lit the conifer trees also set fire to the utility vehicle. The appeal was dismissed, and Guthrie's conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury and that the summing up was fair and balanced.

Orders