Maya Moore (right) was jailed for nine years and must serve a minimum of 4.5 years after she was found guilty of lighting the fires at two properties in Wards Line, near Greytown, in October 2022.
A woman who lit eight fires, causing millions of dollars in damage, refused to engage in her sentencing, instead opting to stand with her back to the court.
Maya Moore was dialling in remotely from a small booth at Wellington’s Arohata prison on Monday.
She made no comment and never showed her face during the hearing, as Judge Peter Hobbs told her the emotional toll of her offending couldn’t be understated.
In September, a jury found Moore guilty of setting fires at two properties on Wards Line, near Greytown, in October 2022.
Moore didn’t attend her trial despite repeated efforts by the judge to get her to do so, and was found guilty of nine charges, including attempted arson and five of arson.
During the sentencing, Judge Hobbs said while the Crown’s case was circumstantial, “having sat through nearly two weeks of evidence, in my view the evidence was overwhelmingly strong and the jury’s verdict was unsurprising".
The court heard that before the fires, Moore had been living and working on one of the farms and grazing her small herd of cows at the other.
Relations with both property owners soured over Moore’s refusal to invoice for her work, her insistence on grazing cattle on land she wasn’t leasing and her refusal to allow beekeepers access onto land she was leasing.
Shortly before the fires, she’d lost her job, been asked to leave her accommodation at one of the properties and had lost the lease on her land.
On the night of the fires, she told a neighbour, “No one’s going to be safe” and “I’m going to deal with it”.
The Crown’s case, which the jury accepted, was that the 50-year-old took tyres from the silage pit at the farm where she worked, stuffed fabric inside the tyres and then drove them in her car across muddy farm tracks, placing them outside buildings on the property.
She then either poured or placed accelerant on the tyres before lighting them. In total, eight fires were lit, damaging five buildings, including two houses, a sleepout, an implement shed and a hayshed. A tyre, left outside the sleepout where Moore lived, was found unlit.
Firefighters with decades of experience told the court the scale of the fires was unprecedented.
The court heard insurance covered about 70% of the estimated $2.3m loss.
Moore wasn’t arrested until almost 24 hours later, when she was seen by a police officer in a paddock at one of the properties.
A subsequent search of her house truck uncovered a gun and ammunition. Moore was also found guilty of resisting arrest and possession of a rifle and 133 rounds of .22 calibre ammunition.
Crown prosecutor Anselm Williams sought a sentence of 10 years’ jail, submitting there could be no credit for a guilty plea because the matter had gone to a trial.
Moore’s refusal to engage in the sentencing also meant there could be no credit for personal factors, he said.
Janine Bonifant, who acted amicus at trial and prepared submissions for the sentencing, said she agreed with the Crown’s suggested starting point.
She asked the judge to take into account Moore’s mental health at the time, acknowledging there was no expert evidence on this point because Moore had refused to be interviewed.
The court heard in preparation for sentencing, Moore refused to engage with the pre-sentence report writer or a psychiatrist, and it’s unclear whether she had read the lawyer’s submissions, which were sent out to the prison for her.
In sentencing, Judge Hobbs said there were several serious features to the case, including that the arson was clearly planned and premeditated.
There was also the sheer number of fires lit that night, and the significant financial loss and emotional harm that resulted from it.
He said it was clear that the fires were a traumatic event for the homeowners and the emotional harm couldn’t be underestimated.
Aside from significant financial losses, both couples had escaped with only a few personal items that night, he said.
Moore had set the fires while both couples were asleep with the intention of causing maximum damage, adding that it was only good fortune that they’d woken and escaped their homes uninjured.
Judge Hobbs agreed that a starting point of 10 years’ jail reflected the seriousness of the offending, reducing it by a further 10% for Moore’s lack of previous convictions, leaving a final sentence of nine years’ jail.
He declined to order reparation, saying it would be unrealistic to do so, but did impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 4.5 years, saying features of the case went outside the normal range.
Moore, who stood at the start of the hearing before sitting down, was out of camera shot by the end of the hearing when the AVL link was cut.
Today’s hearing was the second attempt at sentencing Moore, who was supposed to appear last Thursday.
The law says Moore had to be present during her sentencing.
Despite repeated attempts by Corrections staff, court security and Bonifant, Moore couldn’t be coaxed from the holding cell below the courtroom, choosing instead to remain there, as she had during her trial.
When Corrections staff told the court that Moore was refusing to appear, the judge said it wasn’t appropriate to put Moore’s safety or the safety of Corrections’ officers at risk.
That meant he had no choice but to adjourn sentencing, apologising to those who’d driven down from the Wairarapa.
“As you understand and appreciate, this has been a vexed process from beginning to end,” he said, thanking them for their patience.
On Monday, Moore appeared from the AVL booth at Arohata Prison, wearing a grey prison-issue T-shirt and trackpants.
Henry Benson-Pope, a law lecturer at Otago University, said the Remote Participation Act allowed courts to use audiovisual links (AVL) when sentencing a defendant in custody, if it was in the interests of justice to do so.
Typically, AVL was used at sentencing to save time, money and because it was more efficient to do so.
“A warrant would allow you to bring a person forcibly into a courtroom, and Corrections have powers when someone is lawfully in their custody as well, to use physical force to move them around the prison,” he said.
Benson-Pope said judges had the power to compel a defendant’s attendance through warrants and the Corrections Act, adding the safety of staff was also a relevant consideration.
“It sounds like the judge has made a cautious decision based on the least disruptive and safest course of action for the staff,” he said.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.