Hastings orchardist John Sheward, convicted of attempting to murder his wife by burning down their home, yesterday appealed against his conviction and sentence.
Defence counsel Russell Fairbrother told the Court of Appeal in Wellington that Sheward did not get a fair trial.
Sheward, aged 44, was last month jailed for 10 years
for attempted murder and for recklessly endangering his children.
He denied the charges.
Yesterday Mr Fairbrother said that the police had not properly investigated the possibility that someone else might have been responsible for lighting the fire on November 3 last year.
He said Mr Sheward's eldest son could also have been responsible.
The use of the boy as a witness by the trial judge during the prosecution's case had been prejudicial to the defence case and made the boy appear to be a prosecution witness, he said.
The prosecution had obstructed the defence's efforts to obtain information and interview the boy.
The trial judge had also discounted evidence from an expert witness who had said the fire might only have had one seat.
Also, the introduction of evidence that Sheward had made two earlier insurance claims for fires would have planted a seed in the jury's minds that Sheward was dishonest.
The judge had not addressed the issue of insurance in his summing up and that left the question hanging in the air for the jury, he said.
Crown counsel John Pike said Sheward had had a fair trial.
The defence had run a "trial within a trial" by trying to suggest that Sheward's son might have been the culprit.
The prosecution had introduced the evidence of the insurance claims to show that Sheward, who was in financial difficulty, had earlier obtained cash through insurance.
Justices Noel Anderson, Ted Thomas and Dick Heron reserved their decision.
- NZPA
