Arson Judge Tell’s Jury ‘You have to decide’

THE jury in the trial of a Thame man, accused of starting the fire that caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to a Thame school, was told today that it must decide whether the accused is telling the truth or not.
He, Craig Michael Ford, denies deliberately starting the fire and has accused a man with him on the night, Kieron Holliday, of causing it.
The Procecution say Ford started the fire to destroy DNA evidence from a cut finger sustained at the scene of the crime.
The Defence case, presented today, includes the contention that Kieron Holliday’s demeanour (“he was in turmoil when giving his evidence”) showed that he had not spoken the truth in court, and that the fact that Ford being “obviously not a sophisticated character” had admitted breaking into the school drama studio with intent to steal, deserved an acknowledgement that he was telling the jury the truth. Also, it was pointed out that Ford and his family decided to call the police.
Ford’s Barrister pointed out that on Craig’s custody record there was no evidence when he was examined of having any injuries.
He went on to say to the jury that like him, it might feel that something did not “smell right” about the case against Ford. He quoted Shakespeare, saying: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Before sending them out to consider their verdict at around 12.20pm today, the judge told the jury that they must decide whether or not there is “proof beyond reasonable doubt” that Craig Michael Ford started the fire.
“Unless you are convinced that the Prosecution has proved the case to the standard required, he is entitled to be acquited. You have to be certain that Craig Ford intended to destroy and damage propriety,” he told them.
The judge reminded the jury that the prosecution’s case is that Ford’s previous conviction for setting fire to a motorbike in Wales, showed that he had a tendancy to set fire to things. However, he warned, it did not necessarily mean that he must be guilty in this case.

They would need to consider, the judge added, the facts of Ford’s second interview 24 hours later, when he answered “No comment” to most of the questions, and why that might harm his defence.
He could have been ‘keeping his powder dry’until he knew what had happened to Kieron Holliday who was with him that night, he suggested.
Ford’s defence has been that he was tired, stressed and angry at the position he considered Kieron Holliday had put him in, and that he had already told the officer that arrested him after the fire everything he knew, and did not see why he needed to go through it all again.

The judge also told the jury that they had to keep in mind the evidence of the other witnesses, two of whom had said in their statements that Ford HAD said that he had started the fire, but when asked in court, said that they could not remember him saying it.
They also had to consider, he reminded them, that Kieron Holliday had said that he went into the drama studio when he saw smoke and noticed flames coming out of a cupboard and saw Ford there inside. Holliday said that Ford said: “I have set fire to the school,” and that he “must get out of Thame”.

About the other witnesses, all of whom were under 17 years-old, and particularly one who appeared to find the whole experience of being in court amusing, the judge pointed out to the jury that it should take into consideration these witnesses ages, nerves etc. This particular witness had said that he did not want to say who the two people he had seen in the drama studio were, because they were his friends, but he did say that it was NOT Kieron Holliday who said that he had started the fire, and he would not say which one had a cut finger. (Ford said it was Holliday, and Holliday said Ford told him he had cut his finger, but that he (Holliday) did not see it.)

Another witness said that she had asked Ford why he had done it, and that he replied: “Because I cut myself and the police are already after me.” Then she said, he told her he was going to France (where his grandparents live).
Other evidence in the case presented to the jury included some criticism by the Defence that the officer who first questioned Ford did not take his notes, made a couple of hours after the interview, to be verified by Ford which is normal police procedure.
PC Hounslow had told the court that Ford had denied starting the fire and mentioned that there was a rumour that he HAD started it, and inferred that Holliday bore a grudge against him.

All this, and other evidence, must be considered by the 12 members of the jury as they deliberate privately over the weekend before returning to the Crown Court in Oxford, on Monday to deliver their verdict.

The maximum sentence for this type of offence is 14 years imprisonment.

Photo: A crowd gathers to witness one of the most destructive fires Thame has ever seen, on June 30, 2007.