R v Sheward Ca369/00 - [2001] NZCA 415

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 369/00

THE QUEEN

JOHN DAVID SHEWARD

Hearing:	29 November 2000
Coram:	Thomas J Heron J Anderson J
Appearances:	J C Pike & R J Collins for Crown E R Fairbrother for Appellant
Judgment:	15 February 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY HERON J

This is an appeal against conviction and sentence on one count of attempted murder and one count of wilfully setting fire to a dwelling house, knowing that danger to life was likely to ensue, following guilty verdicts in a trial by jury in the Napier High Court in September 2000. On the attempted murder the sentence imposed was ten years imprisonment and on the arson four years imprisonment, the sentences to be served concurrently.
On 3 November 1999, 1013 Caroline Road, Hastings, was the home of John Sheward, his wife Sally [ ] and their four sons, [ R ] 13, [ O ] 9, [ H ] 8 and [T ] 3. Late that evening someone, with the use of accelerants started a fire in one or more parts of the house, causing the occupants to escape for their lives. Apart from some smoke inhalation suffered by two of the boys, no one was injured.
The family had occupied the single story house for approximately 10 weeks. That day the family routine involved Sally [ ] taking [ R ] to music practice after school. After a hairdresser’s appointment she returned to the house at about 7 pm. Her husband, the appellant, had prepared the evening meal, and after that progressively the children and their mother went to bed.
Sally [ ] was woken not long after she had been asleep and saw light through the curtains of doors that led to a sewing room adjacent to her and her husband’s bedroom. She noticed a fire at the doors and returned to the door into their bedroom which led into a hallway. She saw fire emerging from the area of the kitchen and bathroom to her left. She then closed [T ]’ bedroom door to her right to prevent fire going into that room.
She thought the appellant had not in fact gone to bed as his side of the bed seemed to be undisturbed and he was not in the room when she woke up. She then escaped through her bedroom window discovering that [T ] had been taken out of the house by his father. [ H ] and [ O ] were rescued by their father. Sally [ ] went to get [ R ] who slept in the bedroom furthest away from where she had left the house. She had difficulty in getting him to the window but by moving the curtain and opening the window he was also able to escape.
To the police she repeated what her husband had told her, that she had jumped out of their bedroom in front of him. In evidence at trial she resiled…

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 Sheward Ca369/00

Details

AGLC: R v Sheward Ca369/00 [2001] NZCA 415
Case: [2001] NZCA 415
Decision Date: 15 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sheward Ca369/00 is an appeal against conviction and sentence on one count of attempted murder and one count of wilfully setting fire to a dwelling house, knowing that danger to life was likely to ensue, following guilty verdicts in a trial by jury in the Napier High Court. The appellant, John David Sheward, was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for attempted murder and four years for arson, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The appeal concerns several issues, including the admissibility of evidence of the appellant's insurance claims history, the lies direction given by the Judge, the Judge's decision to call a witness, the role of the Judge in the trial, and the definition of attempted murder and arson. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the appellant's insurance claims history, while not crucial to the case, was relevant to the motive for the crime and did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The lies direction given by the Judge was appropriate and did not unfairly elevate the lies to a level where they added to the case against the appellant. The Judge's decision to call the witness was not wrong, as it gave added emphasis to the defence case that someone else may have been involved in the crime. The Court found that the Judge's role in the trial was appropriate and that the summing up was more than adequate in the circumstances. The definition of attempted murder and arson given by the Judge was clear and did not require further elaboration. The appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders