A fraudster who burnt down his property for an insurance payout has lost his bid for a reduced jail sentence.

The blaze endangered neighbours, firefighters, nearby properties and the two youths hired to light it, three NSW Court of Criminal Appeal judges have found. Deterrence, denunciation of the crime and protection of the community must be given significant weight in sentencing, they say.

Ali Falih Abed was 23 when he and his girlfriend arranged for the youths to burn down their property, but the sentencing judge made a mistake when delivering an oral judgment, saying he was 33.

Abed was convicted of dishonestly destroying a property by fire with a view to making a gain and was sentenced five years’ jail with a non-parole period of three years.  

He appealed based on the judge’s error concerning his age, and he argued the judge failed to discount his moral culpability because he had a deprived background, witnessing war and trauma as a child in Iraq.

Abed and his girlfriend Wafaa Al Shamari bought the property in South Granville in October 2020 and insured it with NRMA Insurance for $550,000, according to the appeal judges’ ruling.

They also tried to buy the adjoining home, but its 72-year-old owner refused to sell.

Penrith District Court found they decided to burn down their house and use the insurance money to develop duplexes on the site. They hoped the fire would encourage their neighbour to sell.

Abed hired the youths, who used jerry cans and petrol bought with his sister’s credit card and went to and from the site in an Uber linked to Abed.

The house was destroyed in August 2021. Abed and the youths were arrested a month later.

The appeal judges say the mistake about Abed’s age was significant because submissions had been made about his youth and immaturity, and because Al Shamari was eight years older, not two years younger, than him.

They accept he should not bear the same moral responsibility as someone who had a conventional upbringing.

But they have not reduced the original sentence, because of the endangerment of others and the recruitment of children to a criminal enterprise.

Read the judgment here.

For in-depth analysis, features and opinion, read the latest Insurance News magazine