The 50-year-old has denied murdering five people by setting the boarding house alight. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
An expert Crown witness in the Loafers Lodge murder trial says he initially believed the accused was insane when he lit the fire - but changed his mind upon reviewing further evidence.
The 50-year-old defendant is on trial at the High Court in Wellington facing five counts of murder, and one of arson, for setting the boarding hostel alight in 2023.
His lawyers say he was insane at the time, but the Crown says he knew it was morally wrong.
The defence has called a psychiatrist supporting the defence of insanity, and the Crown has called four mental health experts rebutting it, with a fifth due to testify on Friday.
One of the Crown's psychiatrists, Dr Oliver Hansby, said in his first 2023 report he believed the man did have an insanity defence available to him.
That was because he was unmedicated at the time, and some of the CCTV footage from his movements inside Loafers Lodge depicted "possible features".
The man also had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and an extensive history of experiencing of delusions and hallucinations which were consistent with what he reported experiencing the night of the fire, Hansby said.
However, this year Hansby had access to further evidence that saw him change his assessment.
He described both opinions as "finely balanced".
That included reports from other psychiatrists who highlighted the defendant's "shifting narratives" about the night of the fire and his own mental health.
Hansby then put less weight on the defendant's own account, saying it was unreliable.
He also read statements from witnesses who interacted with the man around the time of the fire and did not report behaviour consistent with psychosis.
Hansby also said he reviewed hours of further CCTV footage of the defendant at Loafers Lodge in the week leading up to the fire.
There did not appear to be obvious hypervigilance - when people seem on edge - or agitation, he said.
"He was largely engaging in what I thought was goal-directed, purposeful, organised behaviour."
Hansby noted there were some possible psychotic features apparent in the footage, like random laughter, but they featured minimally and did not indicate he would be incapable of understanding moral wrongfulness.
"People can change, people can experience fluctuations in their presentation, and that's within the realm of possibility," he said.
"I don't think it's probable though."
Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Steve Gill put to Hansby that the defendant experienced "breakthrough symptoms" - that would come out of the blue.
Hansby agreed they did happen, and would increase when the man was unmedicated.
"Did you see any signs of anger from the defendant when he was lighting the fire?" asked Gill.
"No ... he was blunted throughout the footage ... that's where someone's, I guess, range of emotional expression is very, very limited."
The Crown also called Professor Graham Mellsop, who did not interview the defendant himself, but reviewed the other psychiatrists' reports.
He also believed the defendant understood lighting the fire was morally wrong.
"[The defendant] specifically said that he had done nothing wrong," in his police interview a few days after the fire, Mellsop said.
That proved he had given a moral opinion, he said.
"That's an unequivocal, almost a King hit to himself and to his defence."
The trial continues, and is expected to conclude next week.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
