R v Hayball - [2013] NZHC 2543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-042-1697 [2013] NZHC 2543

THE QUEEN

v

COLIN GEOFFREY HAYBALL

Hearing: 30 September 2013

Counsel:

J M Webber for Crown
T Bamford for Accused

Sentence:

30 September 2013

SENTENCE OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Hayball you were convicted, following a jury trial, of five counts of arson. You are also to be sentenced on firearm and possession of cannabis charges. You were unrepresented at trial but I record I am satisfied of the matters in s 30 of the Sentencing Act. I also note for the record that Mr Bamford was appointed last week as amicus to assist you concerning sentencing and has presented submissions today.

Facts

[2] Fires were lit in a forest area 40 km south west of Nelson. The fires occurred on three separate days; being 4 February, 10 March and 6 April 2012. In total there
were five fire scenes and 36 fires were lit or intended to be lit.

R v HAYBALL [2013] NZHC 2543 [30 September 2013]

[3] Similar devices were used on each occasion. Following the first set of fires a member of the public discovered one of the devices which had not been destroyed. This enabled investigators to build up a picture of what to look for and where. Eventually by the time of the third outburst of fires many devices were located before they could ignite, or set fire to foliage.

[4] The actual damage caused was thankfully quite limited. It had been a dampish late summer, and the conditions on the particular days were not conducive to fire spreading. The total cost of damage and fire fighting was $131,000.

[5] A troubling aspect of the case was the manner in which the fires were set. The devices were able to be timed in a crude manner. Whilst not capable of precision, the person setting the fires, you Mr Hayball, would have been aware that some devices would ignite several hours after other devices.

[6] Against that background, two facts emerged which caused great concern at the time, amongst those who were fighting these fires:

(a) first, the devices were set either side of access ways, so if all the fires successfully ignited, the likelihood was that the access way would be rendered unusable;

(b)second, the earlier igniting fires were set at the far end of one way roads. The later igniting devices were set towards the entrances.

[7] The risks arising from this pattern are obvious. This is a forest area, a key economic driver of the community and also a constant source of danger should fire occur. Consequently there is always high alert, and fire scenes are attended with some speed. Had on any occasion all the fires succeeded, the fire fighters attending the first scenes would inevitably have been cut off by the later fires.

[8] There was evidence at trial of this reality in two different ways. One was when investigators were examining a scene only…

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 R v Hayball

Details

AGLC: R v Hayball [2013] NZHC 2543
Case: [2013] NZHC 2543
Decision Date: 30 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, the defendant, Colin Geoffrey Hayball, was convicted by a jury of five counts of arson, along with firearm and cannabis possession charges. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences. The legal issues involved included the severity of the arson acts, the potential harm to public safety, and the defendant's culpability and intent. The court also had to consider the defendant's age, previous convictions, and the absence of a clear motive for the arson.

The court, Justice Simon France, considered the repeated nature of the arson attacks, the high level of premeditation, and the potential for significant damage to the forest and risk to firefighters. The actual damage was limited, but the court emphasised the potential for far greater harm. The court found that while the defendant may not have intended to trap firefighters, his actions created a serious risk that was both known and disregarded. The court also noted the defendant's possession of firearms and ammunition, which added to the seriousness of the case. The starting point for sentencing was set at seven years for the arson, with an additional six months for the firearms charges. The court declined to order reparation due to the defendant's lack of capacity to pay, although it noted the potential value of his land in trust.

The final sentence imposed was seven years and six months' imprisonment for the arson, with concurrent sentences for the firearms charges. The court also ordered the destruction of the seized firearms, ammunition, and cannabis. The decision balances the severity of the crimes, the potential harm, and the defendant's personal circumstances, resulting in a substantial but not maximum sentence.

Orders