The Limassol Permanent Criminal Court today sentenced a 56-year-old defendant, who pleaded guilty to arson, to four years in prison.
According to the facts of the case, the defendant intentionally and unlawfully, in the early morning hours of 25/March 3, 2026, intentionally and unlawfully set fire to a motor vehicle valued at €6,000, which was parked in a parking lot near a playground. The Defendant traveled to the scene in a rental vehicle owned by a company where his ex-wife worked, and doused the aforementioned vehicle with flammable liquid while also creating a strip of flammable material to which he set fire.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Members of the Limassol Criminal Investigation Department and the Fire Department arrived at the scene and, using their equipment, managed to extinguish the fire. It was determined that the fire in the car had been set intentionally and maliciously using flammable material, with the aim of completely destroying the vehicle, which was achieved. The defendant’s actions were recorded by closed-circuit television cameras.
For sentencing purposes, five other cases were taken into account in which the Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of assault causing actual bodily injury, committed on February 18, 2019, as well as obstruction of justice and making threats, committed on May 25, 2020, causing serious bodily injury, making threats, trespassing, and domestic violence, all of which were committed on April 26, 2022, unlawful possession of Class A and B controlled substances, unlawful use of a Class A controlled substance and smoking cannabis, which were committed during the period from October 28 – October 29, 2024, and theft, trespassing on private property with the intent to commit a criminal offense, and malicious damage, which were committed on August 24, 2025.
In determining the sentence, the Criminal Court emphasized the seriousness of the Defendant’s overall criminal conduct, which causes insecurity among citizens who fall victim to such acts and beyond, stressing that a deterrent and severe sentence is required.
The Criminal Court noted that the Defendant’s actions were methodical and premeditated and demonstrated the professionalism with which he acted. It further took into account the extent of the damage and the complete destruction that the defendant caused to the vehicle, showing disregard for the consequences and risks involved in his actions. It accordingly ruled that his actions could not be justified on the basis of suspicions that a crime had been committed against him, deeming his rash resort to crime—rather than turning to the competent authorities—to be unacceptable, nor on the basis of the grief he felt over the loss of a close friend, which was entirely unrelated to the incident.
The Criminal Court further emphasized that the other cases the defendant admitted to and which were taken into account involved serious offenses, ruling that the defendant’s criminal conduct as a whole necessitated the imposition of a deterrent sentence.
In the Defendant’s favor, his personal and family circumstances, his admission of guilt, his clean criminal record, and his intention to compensate the victim were taken into account.
The case against the Defendant’s co-defendant was scheduled for a hearing at a later date.
*Featured image from the archive.
