The fire on Waipapa Road, Kerikeri which destroyed Harrison's business. Photo / NZME
When Anthony Harrison tried to explain how linseed oil caused a fire that destroyed his work shed, a judge said his story was unworthy of belief and found him guilty of arson.
The High Court has now ruled Harrison’s explanation was plausible and overturned his conviction.
On October 24, 2017, a blaze tore through “The Music Workshop” in Kerikeri, destroying a seven-bay shed filled with a lifetime collection of sound and music equipment owned by Anthony ‘Tony’ Harrison.
Harrison, a well-known technician in the music scene, was charged and pleaded not guilty to two charges of arson.
The Crown alleged he lit the fire to claim insurance, but his lawyers argued he had no reason to burn it down given the business was thriving with gigs fully booked for the season and healthy bank accounts.
The first two attempts at a jury trial were abandoned after the foreman of the jury quit on the first day and then a fire service witness failed to disclose evidence.
After lengthy delays with Covid and the sheer volume of evidence, a five-week judge-alone trial commenced in Kaikohe District Court in 2022 before Judge John McDonald.
Judge McDonald found Harrison guilty and sentenced him to 10 months home detention.
Harrison continued to maintain the fire was not deliberately lit and appealed the conviction.
In a recently released High Court decision, Justice Laura O’Gorman ruled a miscarriage of justice had occurred for multiple reasons.
CCTV evidence had been produced at trial showing Harrison and his wife walking in and out of the shed moments before the blaze started.
At 12.47pm smoke was visible wafting under a roller door, about the same time Harrison and his wife left in a vehicle to travel to Auckland.
The Crown submitted this was circumstantial evidence as Harrison was “walking with purpose”.
Justice O’Gorman disagreed.
“Although I agree that Mr Harrison was walking with purpose, I would not describe him as ‘hurriedly leaving’. His pace was in the context of the time pressures of their commitments in Auckland.
“My assessment is that this factor does not have any evidential value,” she said.
Three experts gave evidence at trial but only one concluded the fire was deliberately lit.
Although the two other experts could not conclude the fire was deliberate, Justice O’Gorman found that Judge McDonald failed to explain why greater weight was given to the evidence of just one expert over the others.
The focus of the trial came down to the use of linseed oil, which Harrison said was commonly used in the industry to clean equipment.
It was the defence case that linseed oil can spontaneously combust, which was what they said caused the fire. The Crown argued this was not possible.
Harrison gave evidence that on October 22 a bowl of linseed oil was spilt by his toddler. He cleaned it up with rags that were then placed in a plastic bag and left in a corner.
Harrison’s wife gave evidence she observed the spill while three other witnesses told the court they had smelt a putrid smell in the days before the fire and likened it to the smell of linseed oil.
In Judge McDonald’s decision he concluded the linseed story was “unworthy of belief” and implied the wife had lied to go along with Harrison’s motive to obtain insurance.
However, Justice O’Gorman disagreed and said errors had been made in the cross-examination of the wife and the linseed explanation was not implausible.
“Ms Lim was never given the opportunity to respond to such allegations, which was unfair to the appellant.
“I consider this is an error that cannot be explained by the Judge’s written reasons, since there was no express finding that Ms Lim had lied, and therefore no analysis of why the Judge rejected her evidence on those aspects.
“My assessment is that these explanations were potentially plausible, such that there remained an entirely credible possibility that Mr Harrison and Ms Lim were telling the truth about the linseed oil spill.
“Had the Judge not dismissed that evidence, and taking into account the other factors relied on as circumstantial evidence and signs of erroneous probability reasoning, I find that there was reasonable doubt, such that miscarriage of justice has occurred.”
Harrison’s conviction was quashed and Justice O’Gorman directed that it was not in the interests of justice to order a retrial.
In some circumstances, a person who has had their conviction quashed or set aside by the court can apply for compensation for the time they’ve been detained as a result of that wrongful conviction. Harrison had served a nine-month home detention sentence.
Compensation is at the discretion of the Government and can include payments for each year of detention, loss of livelihood, time spent on restrictive bail and assistance for reintegration into the community.
Harrison did not wish to comment when contacted by NZME.
Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.
Min Hu is one of 14 legitimate and innocent investors who are owed nearly $1.5m.