Court Rejects Appeal of Man Who Hired Kids to Commit Arson

A New South Wales man convicted of orchestrating an arson plot involving children has lost his attempt to have his sentence reduced, with the Court of Criminal Appeal citing serious risks to public safety and the recruitment of minors in criminal activity.

Ali Falih Abed, 23 at the time, and his girlfriend, Wafaa Al Shamari, devised a plan to set fire to their South Granville home in October 2020. They hoped to claim $550,000 from NRMA Insurance and to pressure the elderly owner of an adjoining house into selling her property, allowing them to develop duplexes on the combined land.

The arson plan involved hiring two youths, who used petrol purchased with Abed’s sister’s credit card. They travelled to the property using Uber rides arranged by Abed and set the house ablaze in August 2021. Both Abed and the youths were arrested the following month. Fortunately, no fatalities occurred, but the fire endangered nearby homes and the safety of all involved.

Initially sentenced by Penrith District Court to five years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, Abed appealed, claiming the sentencing judge had erred by stating his age as 33 and that his background in war-torn Iraq should mitigate his culpability.

The Court of Criminal Appeal acknowledged that Abed’s deprived upbringing and exposure to trauma were relevant, and corrected the record regarding his age and Al Shamari’s age, noting she is eight years older, not two years younger. Nonetheless, the court concluded that these factors could not justify reducing the sentence because of the serious endangerment of others, particularly minors, and the deliberate criminal planning involved.

Judges emphasised the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and community protection in sentencing. They underscored that the deliberate recruitment of children in criminal acts constitutes a significant aggravating factor, warranting substantial custodial sentences. Consequently, Abed’s original five-year prison term remains unchanged.

This case highlights the courts’ firm stance on arson and child exploitation: mitigating factors such as childhood trauma are considered, but they do not outweigh the need to protect the public and deter serious criminal behaviour.