The burning of the house at Every Street.

I need to take two views here, it seems a difficult situation to resolve on the surface.

First, I look at how the fire might be viewed at the time:

The fire was symbolic ritual to satisfy, or try to satisfy, a deeply traumatised city. It showed that the authorities were in control and that civil order had returned.

The fire was also a 'signal' that the right person had been arrested and the burning of the house attested to the 'fact' that all evidence needed to prove this had been gathered - being another 'subtle' signal to a concerned public.

The reason given for the need to burn the house remains rather unfortunate. The house was burned obstensibly to save it from being burnt.

A Second View:

Should authorities ever be empowered, or seek to be empowered, to destroy the property of a person who has not been availed of due process? I can answer that, no.

The fire, premature and hasty as it was, strikes at a problem that is still relevant today. What duty does the State have to an accused person who is in custody and has obligations they may be unable to complete due to their incarceration. I think that is an issue for Counsel and the Courts. Much better to have an informed Judicial decision by motion to the Court, rather than one-sided situation where the Prosecuting authority are seen to be dealing with the affairs of an accused person in a way that could easily be argued is none of their business.

Unfortunately for David Bain at the time, his Counsel wasn't proactive on the matter of the property. In many ways it seems that Michael Guest was accomodating toward the Crown. It's certainly an area where the consideration of funding shouldn't take precedence, at least not until an accused person is either found guilty or acquitted - until that point the onus, it seems fair, to look after an accused's property should remain with the Crown, rather than was seen to have happened in this case 'look after it by destroying it.' I can't buy into an argument that the condition of the property is in anyway important. I think overall as I've said above, interim orders should be (actually are in my opinion - as it rests as a civil matter, until an accused's fate is finalised) available to both the Crown or an accused in situations of this kind.