The 50-year-old man is charged with five counts of murder and one of arson after setting Loafers Lodge alight on 16 May 2023. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
The jury deciding the fate of the man who lit the fatal Loafers Lodge blaze has begun deliberating.
The 50-year-old defendant, whose name is suppressed, is charged with five counts of murder and one of arson after setting the Wellington hostel alight on 16 May, 2023.
There is no dispute he lit the fire, but his lawyers say he is not guilty by reason of insanity.
They say the defendant - who has schizophrenia - lit the fire when he was experiencing serious psychotic symptoms.
But the Crown says he knew lighting the fire was wrong, and he did so because he did not like living at Loafers Lodge.
The jury returned to court on Wednesday morning to re-watch a section of the defendant's police interview.
In the footage they reviewed, the defendant denies lighting the fatal blaze, despite the officer telling him they'd seen him on CCTV footage.
He told the police officer a fire of that nature would probably "burn the place down".
He said he felt sorry for the people who died and he was very angry at whoever lit the fire, because it was very dangerous.
When the officer left the room the defendant sat silently, at times rubbing his face with his hands.
On Tuesday, Justice Peter Churchman summed up both the Crown and defence cases, gave them a list of questions to consider, as well as possible verdicts, which include manslaughter.
The Crown's case
The Crown called around 100 witnesses over its four weeks of evidence.
They included Loafers Lodge residents who described their harrowing escapes from the blaze, firefighters who fought tears recounting their experiences, and crucially, five mental health professionals who believed the man was not insane when he lit the fire.
The experts said the man did know his actions were morally wrong.
They pointed to the man's own comments to police and psychiatrists, including that he had "done nothing wrong", as evidence he understood the difference between right and wrong.
They also recounted inconsistencies in his accounts of that night and his mental health at the time, saying that called into question his own narrative that voices in his head told him to light the fire.
During closing arguments, Crown lawyer Grant Burston said the defence had "not even come close" to proving the man was insane at the time.
He said the sole psychiatrist called by the defence, Dr Krishna Pillai, took a "blinkered approach" to reach his "fundamentally flawed" opinion.
The defence arguments
The man's lawyers argued he was insane when he lit the fire.
They called Pillai to support that, who told the court he believed that on balance, the man was incapable of understanding his actions were morally wrong.
Pillai pointed to CCTV footage the day of the fire showing the man's agitation as he was "pounding" up and down the stairs and through the halls of Loafers Lodge.
There was evidence the man suffered a "serious psychotic relapse", he said.
Pillai relied on the man's 'self-report' of his mental state at the time.
The man told Pillai, and other psychiatrists, that he lit the fire because voices in his head told him that was the only way to stop people he believed were out to get him.
The defence rejected the Crown's assertion the man lit the fire because he wanted to get better accommodation, saying there was no evidence to support that.
"If you were to go with that theory, you would have to involve yourself in massive guesswork and speculation," she told the jury.
There was no reason for the defendant to light the fire other than mental unwellness, she said, arguing the man was more mentally unwell than anyone realised.
The defence of insanity
The defence of insanity relies on three factors: the person must have a "disease of the mind" and not understand what they were doing, or that it was morally wrong.
The first two points were not in dispute - the man has schizophrenia and both sides agreed he knew what he was doing.
The final point being argued was whether he knew lighting the fire was morally wrong, and people could die as a result.
It was the Crown's job to prove the murder and arson charges beyond reasonable doubt.
But in raising the defence of insanity, the man's lawyers had to prove he was insane on the balance of probabilities - that is, that it was more likely than not that he was insane at the time.
That was a lower threshold than "beyond reasonable doubt".
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
