The 50-year-old man on trial has his identity suppressed. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
The lawyers for a man who lit the fatal Loafers Lodge fire have "not even come close" to proving he was insane at the time, a Crown lawyer says.
A 50-year-old man, whose name is suppressed, is charged with five counts of murder and one of arson after setting the Wellington hostel alight on May 16, 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.
After four weeks of evidence, Grant Burston closed the Crown's case at the High Court in Wellington today.
He told the jury the fire was "no tragic accident", and described the defendant's actions as purposeful and determined.
Burston argued the man knew innocent people could be trapped in the building and die.
Defence psychiatrist's opinion 'fundamentally flawed'
Burston said the defence had "not even come close" to proving the man was insane when he lit the fire.
The defence relied on a sole psychatrist, Dr Krishna Pillai, who said the defendent was insane at the time.
He believed the man was experiencing a serious psychotic relapse, based on the man's own 'self-report' of the events of that evening and his mental state.
"However, the expert evidence of the five experts called by the Crown in rebuttal is that neither of those things are true," said Burston.
"His self-report was clearly not reliable because of the lies and the inconsistencies in his accounts."
Crown prosecutor Grant Burston. Photo: The Post/David Unwin
Burston said Pillai had taken a "blinkered approach" to reach his "fundamentally flawed" opinion.
He had looked only for evidence that supported the defence of insanity, and not considered the inconsistencies and lies in the defendant's account, or alternative explanations for lighting the fire, Burston said.
Under cross-examination, Pillai "essentially accepted" that the defendant knew what he did was morally wrong, after reflecting on statements the man made following the fire, Burston said.
"The defence of insanity relies on the opinion of Dr Pillai, but his opinion is fundamentally flawed," Burston said.
Defendant's goal was to leave Loafers Lodge - Crown
Burston said there was considerable evidence pointing to an alternative reason the man lit the fire: that he did not like living at Loafers Lodge.
"[The defendant's] goal seems to have been to get out of Loafers Lodge," he said.
"His attempts to get alternative accommodation weren't getting him anywhere, and setting the fire to the building was effective way of getting out amd achieving his goal ... it worked."
Burston referenced calls the defendant made about two hours prior to the fire, to people he had previously asked to help him find different accommodation.
"I suggest the reason ... is he's had enough of this place, he wants to get out, but no one will pick up the phone and help him.
"He helps himself," by lighting the fatal blaze, Burston said.
The Loafers Lodge pictured in May 2025. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Lies undermine credibility
Burston spoke to the "list of lies" the defendant told after the fire to psychiatrists and police, including his denial of lighting the fire.
"They undermine substantially his credibility when he's saying, 'well, it was the voices that made me do it'," said Burston said.
The jury could not find the defendant guilty because of those lies, but they were important to take into account, he said.
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 are not in dispute - the man has schizophrenia, and knew what he was doing.
The final point being argued is whether he knew lighting the fire was morally wrong.
It is the Crown's job to prove the murder and arson charges beyond reasonable doubt, Burston said.
But in raising the defence of insanity, the man's lawyers must prove he was insane on the balance of probabilities - that is, that it's more likely than not that he was insane at the time.
The defence will close its case on Tuesday.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
