Public prosecutor demands 10-year prison sentence for Arnhem resident for causing devastating city fire, acquittal sought for two co-defendants

The now 58-year-old Arnhem resident, who is the only suspect still in custody for the major city fire in Arnhem’s city centre last March, is solely responsible for its outbreak, according to the Public Prosecution Service. The Public Prosecution Service is demanding a 10-year prison sentence against him for deliberate arson endangering human life. Based on the investigation, the Public Prosecution Service concludes that his two co-defendants, who also appeared in court yesterday and today, should be acquitted of complicity or accessory liability in the arson.

“6 March 2025 will forever go down in the history books as a pitch-black day for Arnhem,” the public prosecutor began today during the hearing, explaining the sentencing demand. “In the early morning, a very large fire breaks out in the city’s old centre. A large number of beautiful, including historically designated listed buildings, literally go up in smoke. Against all odds, thanks in large part to the emergency services who arrived in droves, there were no fatalities or serious injuries.”

Lasting psychological damage to victims

In addition to the enormous financial and material damage, the Public Prosecution Service extensively highlighted the impact on the victims during the hearing; it is highly likely that some residents will suffer lasting psychological damage due to the terrifying hours they endured, with one case of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) already confirmed: “People were brutally woken in the middle of the night, while asleep in their beds, in their familiar surroundings. By the sounds of the fire, by pounding on neighbours’ doors or by police and firefighters. In the dead of night, they had to leave their homes as quickly as possible and literally leave everything behind. It is almost unimaginable that some had to conclude after a few days that nothing remained of their possessions. Your home, your furniture, your bed, your belongings, your photos, your tangible memories: everything is gone.”

‘Let’s set this thing on fire’

CCTV footage and audio recordings show three people walking through Varkensstraat just before the fire started, shortly after 3 a.m. They are discussing arson: “Hey, let’s set this thing on fire, I think that’d be fun,” one of them says about a roll container with cardboard on it – later confirmed to be the voice of the 58-year-old Arnhem resident. “Yeah, let’s do that,” replies a second person. There is no doubt these are the suspects, as they recognised themselves on the footage after being arrested.

That night, the trio spent nearly 40 seconds near the container in Varkensstraat. According to the Public Prosecution Service, analysis of the camera and audio footage shows that the 58-year-old suspect held fire to a stack of cardboard on the roll container.

There is a gap of more than 10 minutes between the moment the three suspects are in Varkensstraat, walk away, and the first signs of smoke visible on the footage. During that time, no other people passed by the location. Other possible causes (such as a short circuit or lightning strike) have been ruled out after extensive investigations; the fire was started on the exterior of the SoLow shop, on the cardboard on the roll container in Varkensstraat.

Acquittal for co-defendants

In the Public Prosecution Service’s view, there are at least strong indications of the two co-defendants’ involvement: “They literally stood right next to where the fire was lit, which had even been announced shortly beforehand,” the Public Prosecution Service states. “However, it cannot be established that they took any active steps necessary for the criminal act of complicity, such as handing over a lighter, holding or handing over the cardboard, shielding the fire from wind or anything similar.”

The public prosecutor also asked the court whether the remarks made by the two (including the “Yeah, let’s do that”) could suffice to establish complicity. The Public Prosecution Service’s answer is also “no”: “It cannot be inferred that these words encouraged the person who lit the cardboard to start the fire, nor that this ‘consent’ from one of the two co-defendants played any role.”

On the contrary, the Public Prosecution Service believes: “The 58-year-old Arnhem resident came up with the idea to set something on fire himself, took action to do so and stated that he had not been encouraged by either of the co-defendants.”

Since no significant contribution can be proven, the Public Prosecution Service can only conclude that the two co-defendants must be acquitted of complicity or accessory liability in the arson. Although it is clear the suspects were present when the fire started and although their behaviour that evening may be considered morally reprehensible, this does not constitute legal involvement in a crime. They did not make a significant contribution to the offence of arson and therefore, in the Public Prosecution Service’s view, these two defendants should be acquitted of complicity in arson.

Consequences of the fire are attributable to the Arnhem resident

That the Arnhem resident – who has always denied lighting the cardboard on fire – did not intend to cause a fire of this magnitude is, in the Public Prosecution Service’s view, irrelevant to the proven facts of the arson. The suspect’s actions created a situation that was foreseeable to him, and the consequences are therefore attributable to him.

The public prosecutor said: “A fire usually develops unpredictably and can quickly escalate into an all-consuming, large-scale blaze with devastating consequences. And that is exactly what happened here. Although the suspect may not have envisaged these consequences, he could and should have taken them into account. The arson took place in the middle of the night, at a time when many people were asleep, in Arnhem’s city centre, which is known to consist of many old, closely spaced buildings.”

He has not been able or willing to provide a motive for his actions, but the Public Prosecution Service considers the testimony of a neighbour of the suspect to be telling. “After the fire, the suspect was seen on his balcony, waving cheerfully and jubilantly at the fire engines alongside the other involved parties. In an intercepted phone call, when told ‘that whole bloody mess has been torched,’ the suspect responds with the words: ‘Good man.’”