The Court of Appeal has doubled a prison sentence from one to two years for a 26-year-old man who admitted setting fire to a car in Nicosia in November 2023. The court ruled that the original sentence was inadequate given the seriousness of the case, but rejected the Attorney General’s challenge to the suspension of the sentence.
The man had been convicted by the Nicosia District Court after admitting arson, an offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison under Article 315(a) of the Criminal Code. The trial court imposed a one-year prison sentence but suspended its execution.
The Attorney General appealed on two grounds, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the trial court had wrongly exercised its discretion by suspending it.
How the car was set on fire
According to the judgment, the man saw his girlfriend kissing the owner of the car in August 2023. The incident later became the source of jealousy that preceded the arson.
On the night of 7 November 2023, while walking past the restaurant where the car owner worked, the 26-year-old decided to set fire to his vehicle.
He took a bottle containing petrol from the basement of his apartment building and walked to a car park where he knew the vehicle was parked. After setting the car on fire, he discarded the bottle and his clothes in his neighbourhood.
The trial court had considered several mitigating factors, including his clean criminal record, his immediate admission of guilt and his cooperation with police.
It also considered the absence of premeditation and the fact that the offence was committed out of jealousy and anger. The trial court viewed these circumstances as distinguishing the case from other arson offences intended to intimidate victims or serve other purposes.
Why the original sentence was inadequate
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s approach, finding that it had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the relevant legal principles.
It noted that time had passed between the incident that triggered the jealousy and the arson. The man had also taken time to travel to the car park and set fire to the vehicle. These circumstances did not support describing the act as one committed in the heat of the moment.
The appeal court also ruled that jealousy could not be treated as a mitigating factor. Nor did the absence of an intention to intimidate or pursue another improper objective reduce the seriousness of the offence.
Particular weight was given to the fact that the arson took place at around 1.30am in a car park in central Nicosia. The court said the circumstances created an obvious risk to the public and neighbouring property, which should have been treated as an aggravating factor.
The judgment referred to previous case law establishing that arson is inherently serious because of the dangers and potentially devastating consequences involved. Such offences can cause property damage, put human lives at risk and create a sense of insecurity within the community.
The court stressed the need for deterrent sentences to discourage both the offender and others from committing similar offences.
It concluded that the original one-year sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime and had resulted from an error of principle.
Why the sentence remains suspended
When determining the new sentence, the Court of Appeal considered the man’s agreement to provide full and immediate compensation for the damage caused.
It also took into account his clean criminal record, his age when the sentence was imposed and the fact that he had been employed for several years without coming to the attention of the authorities.
However, the court rejected the Attorney General’s second ground of appeal, which challenged the suspension of the prison sentence.
After examining the man’s personal circumstances, the court concluded that his remorse, previous conduct and behaviour since the offence justified maintaining the suspension.
A Social Welfare Services report indicated that he had tried from a young age to work in the field for which he had acquired professional skills through technical school. The report also noted that he had since established a stable and harmonious living arrangement.
The Court of Appeal concluded that, although the original sentence needed to be increased, the circumstances justified giving the man a second chance.
The Attorney General’s appeal was therefore partially upheld. The one-year prison sentence was set aside and replaced with a two-year sentence, while the rest of the original judgment remained in force, including the suspension of the sentence.
Also read: Mask and gloves led police to drugs after unpaid rent exposed tenant
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
