The Court acquitted the accused of arson on Count 1 (fire at 48 Dulcie Holland Crescent) because the CCTV footage was insufficiently clear to identify the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the cell tower evidence was equivocal, and alternative suspects could not be excluded. The Court convicted on Count 2 (fire at 29 Gussey Street) on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence including proximity, motive, opportunity, intoxication, a recent altercation with the victim, and physical evidence (white powdery substance on the accused's hands). The accused's record of interview was excluded on the voir dire because police failed to allow reasonable time for the accused to contact her lawyer before and during questioning, in circumstances where the officer knew she was represented and could have arranged the lawyer's attendance in advance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.