A 25-year-old man was jailed for three years by Limassol Criminal Court on Friday for stealing a car in Paphos and setting it on fire. He must also serve a four-month suspended sentence from an earlier case.
He had admitted all the charges, which also included stealing a motorcycle in Limassol and damaging it.
The court heard that on 2 June 2026 he stole a car in Paphos that its owner had parked and left unlocked with the key inside. During the journey towards Limassol, he threw out a television belonging to the owner at an unknown spot. He then parked the car on a dirt road and set it alight, causing 8,000 euros’ worth of damage.
Between 4 and 8 July 2025, he had stolen a motorcycle in Limassol and caused 2,500 euros’ worth of malicious damage to it.
He received concurrent sentences of three years for arson, two years on each of two theft charges and nine months on each of two charges of malicious damage. The court activated a four-month sentence that Larnaca District Court had suspended in another case, to be served once the new sentences are completed. It ordered the new sentences to take effect immediately, with time already spent in custody counted towards them.
Compensation orders were issued for 8,000 euros for the damage to the car and 2,500 euros for the damage to the motorcycle.
In sentencing, the court gave particular weight to the seriousness and extent of his offending, noting that the cases involved separate offences against the property of unsuspecting members of the public. The ruling said his conduct showed serious contempt for the law and for the rights of others, and created a sense of insecurity in society.
The defendant said his actions were linked to his drug addiction, but the court said addiction could not justify the offences. It noted that the car theft and arson came a few months after Larnaca District Court suspended his earlier sentence on 27 November 2025. Committing new and more serious offences showed he had not appreciated the chance he had been given, it found.
In mitigation, the court took into account that the fire did not endanger human life, spread or cause further damage, that the offences were not premeditated and that he made no financial gain.
It also considered his guilty plea, which saved valuable court time, and the fact that he confessed to police the day after the arson, which led to his admitting the earlier offences. His intention to compensate both complainants was taken as a sign of remorse.
However, his previous criminal record limited the scope for leniency, the ruling said, adding that in cases this serious a defendant’s personal circumstances carry limited weight.
