Lake Dive Hut pictured before the fire. Photo / Tamsen Walker, Department of Conservation
Lake Dive Hut pictured before the fire. Photo / Tamsen Walker, Department of Conservation
A homeless man who lived on Mt Taranaki and was accused of burning down a popular tramping hut has been given a stay of proceedings after spending two years locked up without a trial.
Daniel Banks was charged with arson after the 16-bunk Lake Dive Hut on the mountain's southern slopes was destroyed in a September 2020 fire, causing more than $400,000 in damage.
He has been remanded in custody since his arrest on October 2, 2020, and is yet to stand trial due to a number of delays and a limitation on court resources.
Bail has not been an option for a number of reasons including that Banks did not have an available address.
In his judgment, Judge Tony Greig, who heard the application in New Plymouth District Court, agreed with Pascoe and granted the stay.
The charges Banks faced - of arson, five of wilful trespass, disorderly behaviour and accosting a person in a frightening manner - have now been dismissed.
The judgment, released on Wednesday, sets out the background to the arson case.
It said for possibly up to a year before the fire, Banks had for "large periods of time, if not permanently" been living on the mountain.
He had been staying in various Department of Conservation (DOC) huts and had become regarded as a "nuisance" by DOC and other mountain users.
Lake Dive Hut could be found on Mt Taranaki's southern slopes. Photo / Mike Scott
As a result he had been trespassed from a number of the huts, including Lake Dive Hut.
The charges of trespass reflect allegations that he had breached the trespass notices.
On the night of the fire, Banks was seen at Lake Dive Hut by a tramper who told the court Banks was on the mountain "dangerously unprepared". He was soaking wet, wearing jandals and had no food or bedding.
The hut's fireplace had been lit and during the course of the evening Banks continued to feed the fire.
It is alleged that a blaze later broke out in the hut because Banks had left the door to the fireplace open.
But it is not alleged that he started the fire deliberately.
"The allegation, in broad terms, is that [he] must have foreseen the risk that the hut would catch fire from the way he piled the fireplace with wood and left the door open."
But the origin of the fire has not actually been determined, Judge Greig said in his decision, adding he believed the prosecution did not have a strong case.
On the reason for the delay in Banks' case, Judge Greig said it was accepted that neither prosecution nor the defence had contributed to the holdup.
The only reason he could discern for the delay was the lack of available judge-alone trial dates that are provided to the court by the Ministry of Justice.
"In other words the delay was systemic, something that does not excuse it," he said.
If Banks was to go to trial in December, Judge Greig ruled that he would not receive a fair trial.
"A fair trial would not require him to remain in custody for 26 months on a straightforward matter.
"He has already been treated unfairly and even were the trial to be held today the unfairness would not be undone."
Further, Judge Greig said if Banks was convicted of the offending, he has already served more than half of the sentence likely to be imposed, meaning there was real risk that one of the possible remedies, a reduction in sentence, would be of no benefit to Banks.
The judge acknowledged the loss suffered by DOC and the harm Banks had caused to the community with his presence on the mountain.
He said there was undoubtedly a public interest factor in the prosecution, in that the mountain is a revered part of the local landscape to both the tangata whenua and pākehā alike.
But there must also be a public interest in the speedy resolution of criminal proceedings, he said.
Judge Greig ruled the delay was undue and that there was only one remedy.
"The proceeding on all charges is stayed."
His judgment ended with a plea to the Department of Corrections: "On my understanding, Mr Banks is homeless with very limited support available to him either physically, emotionally or financially.
