Heritage Building Fire Charge: From 10 Years’ Imprisonment to No Conviction

Our client, an international student, was accused of damaging a heritage listed university building by fire, an offence carrying up to 10 years’ imprisonment. He also faced a repair bill estimated at $100,000 and university misconduct proceedings that put his enrolment at risk. Despite all that, he walked away without a criminal conviction after being charged with intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property by fire under section 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900(NSW).

A heritage building fire is treated seriously by the courts. For a young student who had come to Australia to study, a conviction would have been a lasting mark on his record, one that could follow him through his studies and shape his career for years to come.

‍

Three Problems at Once: The Charge, His Enrolment and a $100,000 Repair Bill

When he came to us, our client was under enormous pressure. He was facing three separate threats:

• A serious criminal charge. Damaging property by fire carries up to 10 years’ imprisonment, and a conviction was a real possibility.
• His enrolment. The university had opened its own investigation and was considering expelling him, which would have put his enrolment and the credits he had already earned at risk.
• A repair bill of around $100,000. It was unclear whether the university would pursue it, or whether police or prosecutors would ask the court for compensation.

Our strategy was to protect his enrolment first, then fight for an outcome without a conviction. Avoiding a conviction on a charge carrying 10 years’ imprisonment is difficult, but we believed it was worth pursuing.

‍

The Charge: Damaging Property by Fire Under Section 195(1)(b)

Damaging property by fire under section 195(1)(b) carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. The sentence a court imposes largely reflects how serious the conduct was. Showing that an offence was reckless rather than intentional reduces the offender’s culpability and can lead to a significantly lighter outcome.

Under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a court can find an offence proved but impose a conditional release order without recording a conviction.

‍

How We Challenged the Police Facts in the Heritage Building Fire Case

The original police facts painted a stark picture of our client. They described him riding up to the bin, lighting a piece of paper, emptying a shopping bag into the bin and then leaving without any attempt to limit the damage from the fire.

Our Principal Partner Solicitor Alex Cao obtained the full CCTV footage and reviewed it closely, noting several details that did not fit that account. Speaking with our client then filled in the missing background. The incident happened on the day of the Ghost Festival. Our client holds deep Taoist beliefs, and on that day he had been told to burn certain items in a particular direction as part of a traditional ritual.

Once we had that background, the footage lined up with his account. The timing of the burning, the smoke and the fire matched what he described. Most importantly, the footage showed a gap of 17 minutes between him burning the items and visible smoke and flames appearing, and he had already left the scene by then. If someone intends to start a fire, why would it take 17 minutes to take hold?

We obtained weather data for the hours in question, which showed strong winds at the location, consistent with our client’s account of what happened.

‍

Our Submissions to the University: Protecting His Enrolment

We first contacted the university’s disciplinary officer to explain the cultural and religious background, noting how many of the university’s international students come from backgrounds with different religious beliefs and traditional practices. We then put together a detailed written submission covering:

• our client’s communications with the Taoist master
• the timing and direction of the ritual
• the wind direction and speed on the day
• our analysis of the 17-minute gap on the CCTV footage

The university accepted our explanation. It still considered that our client’s carelessness had caused the fire, but it came to see the incident very differently: as an accident caused by negligence, not deliberate fire-setting. Our client was not expelled and did not miss a single day of classes.

‍

Negotiating With Prosecutors: From Deliberate Fire-Setting to Accident

While dealing with the university, we were also negotiating with the prosecution. We put the university’s final findings to them and explained that the real circumstances were very different from the original allegation. If the university had accepted the true background, prosecutors needed to look at the nature of the case again.

Before the hearing, the amended facts were accepted. The incident was no longer treated as deliberate, but as an accident caused by negligence. The estimated cost of repairs, assessed against the amended facts, fell from $100,000 to about $40,000. Prosecutors also agreed not to oppose our application for a result without a conviction.

‍

Result: Section 10 Outcome and No Criminal Conviction

Following our submissions and our client’s guilty plea on the amended facts, the court dealt with the matter under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This provision discharged our client on a conditional release order without recording a conviction.

There was one surprise on the day. At sentencing, prosecutors suddenly asked for compensation of about $40,000, even though the university had already told us it was not seeking any. Asking for an adjournment would have meant another day of legal fees for our client, so we contacted the university on the spot and asked it to email the court and prosecutor confirming that the matter was finished at university level and that further compensation was not appropriate. The university did so straight away, and the compensation request fell away.

The result:

• our client kept his enrolment and was not expelled
• no conviction was recorded on a charge carrying up to 10 years’ imprisonment
• no compensation was ordered
• he has no criminal record

‍

What This Heritage Building Fire Case Shows

The police account is not always the full story. Reviewing the CCTV footage, the weather data and our client’s cultural and religious background changed how the incident was understood, and that made the difference between a conviction and a second chance.

For international students, a criminal charge rarely stays inside the courtroom. University discipline, enrolment, visas and compensation all need to be dealt with together.

Charged With Damaging Property by Fire? Speakto a Criminal Lawyer Early

If you or a family member has been charged with damaging property by fire, or a similar offence, and you are worried about your studies, visa or future, early legal advice can help you understand your options. Contact Brightstone Defence for a confidential consultation.

‍