Boy who burnt house cleared of causing serious injury

A teenage boy, who set fire to his parents' matrimonial house following separation proceedings, was cleared of seriously injuring a family friend who walked into the burning house after a magistrate ruled the accused never intended to hurt anyone.

"Like many other children, the boy (who was 16 at the time) had been caught in the middle of problems between his parents who were undergoing separation proceedings," Magistrate Miriam Hayman ruled.

"In fact, the minor seems to be really sorry that his mother ended up with nothing in the matrimonial house as his father had cleared it of most of the assets. In his mind there was one solution - 'set fire to the rest of it so my father will get nothing'," she said.

Magistrate Hayman ruled that although there was no doubt that the accused, now 21 years old, had set the house on fire and caused a considerable amount of damage, he never intended to hurt anyone. The boy had originally been charged with setting fire to his parents' house, trying to kill his father and a family friend, causing damage to the house and seriously injuring the family friend on June 24, 2000.

The magistrate noted that when the records of the case were sent to the Attorney General (AG), some charges were dropped and the boy was left to face the charges of causing damage to the house and serious injury.

Magistrate Hayman noted that there was no doubt that the boy had set the house on fire but she was only to decide on the charges filed by the AG.

On evaluating legal submissions she cleared the boy of causing damage to the house because the charge laid down by the AG did not include damage through arson and for this reason the court could not find him guilty of the charge.

The magistrate then moved to decide on the serious injury charge.

She heard the boy explain how his mother had been awarded the matrimonial house during separation proceedings but his father emptied it of most of the furniture. That was when he decided that if his father was not going to let his mother keep the furniture, he would stop his father from taking more of it.

So he deactivated the alarm system, poured kerosene on the stairs and hall of the house and tried to ignite a fire with a cigarette. But this attempt failed and he threw the cigarette in the toilet as he did not want his father to find out that he smoked.

As he was preparing another attempt at torching the house, he called his father on his mobile phone several times to ensure he was still at work but the man did not answer. Then, he heard a car parking near the house and when he looked outside he saw his father and the family friend.

The boy locked the front door to ensure no one would get into the house and set the house on fire without realising that, in the meantime, his father was opening the locked door. The family friend suffered burns as a result of the fire.

The magistrate also heard how the father had said he believed the boy had tried to kill him and that he had been told to do so by his mother. The magistrate ruled that she could understand the sensitivity of the situation and, although there was no doubt that the boy had made a big mistake, the father's insistence that he be given a jail term did not reflect a positive attitude.

"Perhaps the adults involved indirectly in the case ought to have a good look around them and look into what led a minor to take such measures," she said.

After evaluating the evidence, the magistrate cleared the boy of the serious injury charge. She noted she did not want to give him the impression that he had done nothing wrong. His was an act of cowardice and showed lack of maturity.

The magistrate recommended that the boy, now a man, be given any help needed.

Police Inspector Michael Mallia prosecuted. Lawyer Joseph Giglio represented the boy.