The owner of a Land Rover Freelander who had been charged with setting his car on fire to benefit from an insurance claim was acquitted on Wednesday after a court ruled that the prosecution’s case had rested entirely upon the “assumptions and speculations” of a court-appointed expert.

Aldo Bajada, 40, had turned up one morning in September 2012 at the Naxxar police station to report that his vehicle had been damaged in a fire.

A magisterial inquiry had kicked off into the suspected arson, with a number of experts called in to determine the dynamics and cause of the fire.

Among these was one expert who made several “assumptions and speculations” borne out of a discussion which he had conducted with the owner of the vehicle during the on-site inspection.

On the basis of these conclusions, the police had pressed charges against the owner for reporting a crime which had not taken place, setting his car on fire to claim insurance money and also for being a relapser.

In the course of proceedings, the dynamics of the alleged arson, as determined by the expert, appeared to indicate that the perpetrator had opened the driver’s door, scattered flammable liquid onto the car seats and set it alight with a burning paper.

The fire spread quickly but the blaze had been extinguished within minutes once the oxygen inside the closed vehicle burnt out, the expert had reported, concluding that the perpetrator must have been no expert since, otherwise, he would have left the door open to stoke the fire.

This same expert said that it must have been the accused who had started the fire since his licence was to expire within one month. Moreover, he had cleared out his car a few days before and besides the car had a central locking system which meant that one open door, in this case that on the passenger side, would have unlocked all other doors.

The court, presided over by magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, pointed out various shortcomings by the prosecution in proving its case.

There was no evidence that the central lock system had been functioning before the fire or whether it had been damaged in the blaze.

A chemical expert had concluded that there were “no traces of fuel” or other flammable liquid, explaining that the orange liquid lifted from the scene of the fire was a substance resulting from the burning of plastics or fabrics.

On the basis of all the evidence put forward, the court could find anything linking the accused to the alleged arson, adding that the cause of the fire had not been proven in any way.

As for the alleged insurance fraud, the prosecution had not brought evidence of any claim lodged by the accused in the four-year interval between the suspected arson and his arraignment.

In view of the fact that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court cleared the man of all charges.

Lawyer Joe Giglio was defence counsel.