Hannigan v R - [2012] NZCA 133

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA639/2011
[2012] NZCA 133

BETWEEN SHANE DANIEL HANNIGAN
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 22 February 2012

Court: Wild, Ronald Young and Andrews JJ

Counsel: J M Ablett-Kerr QC and G Iddamalgoda for Appellant
L C Preston for Respondent

Judgment: 3 April 2012 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal, which is against conviction only, is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Wild J)

Introduction

Mr Hannigan appeals against his conviction in the Dunedin District Court for arson. He was tried before Judge Kellar and a jury. His contention is that he did not get a fair trial as a result of three things:
(a)The admission of evidence that he had attempted to set fire to the kitchen in his house on two previous occasions. Mr Hannigan submits this evidence was inadmissible, and would not have been admitted had the prosecution sought a ruling as it should have done.
(b)The prosecution being allowed to cross-examine one of their own witnesses. The point here is that no application was made to have that witness declared hostile, but the Crown nevertheless impeached the witness in closing to the jury.
(c)The verdict was unreasonable and was not supported by the evidence.
The third point is consequential upon the first two. It adds s 385(1)(a) to s 385(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961, as the basis for the appeal.

Background

Mr Hannigan and his partner (now wife), Ms Kirsty White, owned a modest home at 31 Eskvale Street in south Dunedin. The couple had one child and were expecting a second. They wanted to move to Mosgiel to be close to Ms White’s parents. They had listed their property with a firm of real estate agents, which was conducting open homes. Mr Hannigan and Ms White were living elsewhere during this marketing period. The marketing was not going well. The house had a small, inadequate lean-to type of kitchen which prospective buyers found unattractive.
The indictment on which Mr Hannigan faced trial charged that he had:
… on the 21^st day of June 2009 at Dunedin, intentionally damaged by fire immovable property, namely a dwelling house situated at 31 Eskvale Street, Dunedin with intent to obtain a benefit.
PARTICULARS: Insurance payout.
The Crown case was that the fires Mr Hannigan lit on 21 June were his third successive attempt to burn down or damage the kitchen of the house, so that he and his partner could obtain insurance monies to replace it with an adequate kitchen. The first attempt was on 14 June, when Mr Hannigan turned the elements on the stovetop to high and left them on, before locking up the house and leaving. The second attempt was on 20 June, when Mr Hannigan piled small pieces of wood and fabric onto the elements on the stovetop and again turned them to high before securing the house and leaving.
The third attempt — that charged in the indictment —…

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 Hannigan v R

Details

AGLC: Hannigan v R [2012] NZCA 133
Case: [2012] NZCA 133
Decision Date: 3 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the case of Hannigan v R, where Shane Daniel Hannigan appealed against his conviction for arson. Hannigan argued that his trial was not fair due to the admission of evidence regarding his previous attempts to set fire to the kitchen, the prosecution's cross-examination of its own witness, and the verdict being unreasonable and unsupported by evidence. The Court, consisting of Wild, Ronald Young, and Andrews JJ, dismissed the appeal against conviction. The Court found that the evidence of the previous attempts to set fire to the kitchen was relevant and highly probative of Hannigan being the arsonist. The Court also determined that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing address did not challenge the witness's veracity and did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the Court held that the evidence pointed strongly to Hannigan being the person responsible for the fires, and the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders