Arson Case Laws

Question 1

R v Harney - What was it about?

Answer 1

In R v Harney the defendant was convicted of murder after stabbing the victim in the stomach during an altercation. He argued unsuccessfully that he had been aiming for the victim’s leg knowing he could have seriously injured the man, but denied wanting to kill him.

Question 2

R v Harney - (Recklessness)

Answer 2

Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.

Question 3

R v Morley - What was it about?

Answer 3

In R v Morley a deception case, the Court of Appeal reviewed the nature of loss and held that criminality could only arise from direct loss; indirect losses such as expectation loss (loss of a bargain) and loss of anticipated future profits are not included.

Question 4

R v Morley - (Loss extent)

Answer 4

“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the [offence] has been diminished or impaired.”

Question 5

R v Archer - What was it about?

Answer 5

In R v Archer the defendant was charged with arson after setting fire to some toilet paper in the bathroom of a church, resulting in “blackening” to the top of the sink.
The Court of Appeal held that, in general terms, any change in an object that impairs its value or usefulness may constitute damage; whether or not such a change amounts to damage is a matter of fact and degree to be determined on a case by case basis.

In Archer the Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the blackening was charring, which would have been damage, or just a deposit of soot, which might or might not have amounted to damage depending on the extent of it. As damage could not be proved adequately to support a conviction for arson,

Question 6

R v Archer - (Property damage)

Answer 6

Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value.

Question 7

4. R v Harpur - (Conduct)

Answer 7

The Court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops … the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.

Question 8

What are the 4 ‘must know’ Arson case laws?

Answer 8

1. R v Harney - (Recklessness)
2. R v Morley - (Loss extent)
3. R v Archer - (Property damage)
4. R v Harpur - (Conduct)