In January 2022 as our client had finished working at his convenience store in Fairfield for the day, he locked the back door of the shop before getting into his car and driving away. Four minutes after driving away, smoke was seen emitting from his back door. Around fifteen minutes later, the NSW Fire brigade attended his shop and allegedly extinguished a large fire.

As a result of the alleged fire, both the NSW police and our client’s insurance company commenced an investigation.  A few months later, our client was charged with the following offences:

1. Drive motor vehicle on road during disqualification period, contrary to section 54(1) of the Road Transport Act 2013;
2. Possess prohibited drug, contrary to section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985;
3. Intentionally or recklessly damage property by fire/explosives, contrary to section 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900; and
4. Dishonestly for gain damage property by fire/explosives, contrary to section 197(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for the most serious charge was 14 years imprisonment.

The police alleged that our client had intentionally lit his shop on fire by placing fire starters throughout his shop and then lighting them with a cigarette lighter. The police alleged that our client did this so that he could claim $400,000 worth of damage through his insurance company.

When the charges first came to Court, the police prosecutor did not elect to have the matter heard in the District Court.  Our client then pleaded not guilty to the charges, and they were set down for a Local Court hearing in February 2024.

In January 2024, a month before the hearing, the police filed an application to the Local Court to vacate the hearing date, on the basis that the prosecution had decided to elect to have the case heard in the District Court, before a jury. At the same time, the police also served thousands of financial and insurance documents relating to our client’s alleged financial position. Our client instructed our criminal lawyer to oppose the application to elect to have the matter heard in the District Court.

At Court, after the police officer was cross examined by our criminal lawyer, the Magistrate refused the application for the prosecution to elect to have the case heard in the District Court, because of the unusual delay in the decision (one month away from the hearing). The Magistrate determined that the prosecution had only decided to elect because they had actually failed to serve essential financial documents on our client, despite the police being in possession of them for over a year. Because of the late service of the evidence, the hearing in February 2024 was vacated, however, it remained in the Local Court. The Magistrate then awarded our client $14,000 for his legal costs spent on preparing for the hearing.

The Magistrate’s decision meant that our client was only facing a maximum penalty of two years in jail, instead of fourteen.  The defended hearing was then set down for three days in September 2024.

Leading up to the new hearing date, our Sydney criminal lawyer then began negotiating a plea deal with the prosecution. Eventually the prosecution agreed to withdraw all of the charges, on the basis that our client pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

1. Possess prohibited drug, contrary to section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985; and
2.  Recklessly damage property, contrary to section 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The maximum penalty for the most serious charge was now five years imprisonment, instead of fourteen.

The agreed facts were also changed. The allegation that our client lit his shop on fire as an insurance job changed to our client recklessly leaving too many appliances plugged into a power board which caused an unknown amount of smoke damage to the ceiling of his shop. There was no mention of any fire or insurance in the facts.

In September 2024, our client was sentenced by a Magistrate at the Fairfield Local Court, where he received a Conditional Release Order without conviction.