Man admits fires while on parole for arson

Karl Stephen McDowell has gone to jail for 21 months for lighting three nuisance fires in suburban Christchurch while he was out on parole for arson.

The 24-year-old has now been recalled to prison for his 2006 arson conviction and the sentenced imposed today will be added to his current term.

Christchurch District Court Judge Gary MacAskill ordered him to pay $5366 reparations for the damage he did to the Sydenham businesses.

The fires were lit at night when no one was in the area, but it could have been a lot worse, the court was told.

Defence counsel Hamish Evans said McDowell coped poorly with stress in his life. In early February he was distressed because of his financial situation and because of a relationship breakdown.

At 12.15am on February 3, he set fire to a chair outside Pizza Hut and the flames melted fittings and pipes above on the LPG system. The gas ignited and flames went up to 6m high. There was extensive damage to the southern end of the building and the pipelines.

McDowell went around the area on a mountainbike and lit fires in rubbish outside a BNZ branch and Rob Roy's Tavern.

Mr Evans said no accelerants were used. McDowell had only lit rubbish and had no intention of causing harm to people or to the premises.

"He is a self-confessed fire bug. He is setting fires for the sake of setting fires," he said. McDowell accepted his actions were "remarkably stupid" and he had a genuine desire to get psychological assistance.

He said McDowell had promise. He now had a certificate in business management from the Open Polytechnic.

Judge MacAskill said McDowell had received a community work sentence for an arson in 2002 and three years six months jail for his 2006 conviction.

He said he believed McDowell's actions were reckless rather than premeditated or calculated to cause risk to life. "But risk to life can't be discounted," he added, noting that McDowell was assessed as being a high risk of reoffending.

The seriousness of the offending, the previous convictions, and the need for deterrence meant that home detention could not be considered.

- NZPA