Nwicker60
29-Sep-11, 15:07
Third accused is found "guilty"-all three will be sentenced next month
THE third accused in a Wick fire-raising incident has been found guilty.
Rachel Jones (20) had denied the charge of wilfully setting fire to her former boyfriend’s car causing damage to another vehicle. She will be sentenced along with her co-accused, Andy Beresford and Brett Webster, on October 25, both of whom had previously pleaded guilty.
Wick Sheriff Court heard yesterday that all three had gone to the Hendry house in the early hours of March 4, with a can of diesel, and wearing dark clothes, to avoid detection.
Beresford (18) formerly of Seaforth Avenue, Wick, and now living in Golspie, and Webster (16) of Harrow Terrace, Wick, told the court that Jones had been ‘in’ on the plan to set fire to Christopher Hendry’s car, from the start, and had encouraged them to do it. They told how the trio entered a parking compound at the back of the Hendrys’ home in Wellington Street.
The lads poured some of the fuel over the Seat Leon car but had difficulty in igniting it. They claimed that Jones had come down from the high compound wall and helped them to look for material that would ignite. They didn’t find anything and, in the end, Beresford, took one of his socks off, which served the purpose.
Afterwards, the trio walked up the road, “laughing joking and giggling”, according to Beresford, who told the court that once back at Jones’ home she was “over the moon at what they had done” and was grateful to them.
Christopher Hendry’s Seat Leon went up in flames and his father’s car suffered partial damage.
Giving evidence, today, Jones said that the idea to damage Chrissie’s car had been a topic of conversation in the preceding weeks, but she didn’t take Beresford and Webster seriously. She conceded she had accompanied them to the scene of the fire but denied getting down from the wall to help look for combustible material or supplying a lighter.
Jones said she didn’t see fuel being poured as she was on the other side of the wall and had been unable to get over it.
Her solicitor Alex Burn said: “We have heard evidence that you came down from the wall to help find something to burn.”
Jones: “Absolutely not”. She said she couldn’t see what the boys were doing but heard them talking about the sock” and didn’t witness the car going on fire.
Jones admitted lying at the first police interview but at a second session said that her involvement had been limited to going with Webster and Beresford to the fire scene but had no part in the execution of the crime. She denied taunting her co-accused suggesting they were going to “chicken out” and “didn’t have the guts to do it”.
Jones told Mr Burn said she had not been “a main player” in the incident but on the periphery.
She thought the fire-raising had been bravado on the part of Webster and Beresford and never imagined they would follow it through.
Cross-examined by senior fiscal depute, David Barclay, Jones denied that she had got involved in the fire-raising plot to get back at Christopher Hendry who had not treated her very well when they were together and had two-timed her.
Jones replied that at the time of the fire incident, her relationship with Mr Hendry had been “past history.”
She said that despite the fact, that the boys had gone for diesel and left at the bottom of the stairs in her house, she didn’t question it because she still thought it was all ‘bravado’ and didn’t think they were going to go through with it.
Mr Barclay: “There had been a discussion about the fire, diesel is obtained and taken back to your house and you all leave together for the Hendrys. Did you think you were going for a random walk in Wick. Is that the sort of thing people there do here...wander about in the early hours of the morning with a can of diesel? “
Jones: “Andrew was quite drunk. I thought it was bravado.”
Jones agreed she had not questioned the boys about their intentions, or at least asked what they were going to do with the diesel, again insisting she didn’t think they were going to go through with it.
Mr Barclay: “After the car was set on fire you were laughing and celebrating a good job”
Jones: “That is a complete fabrication.”
Mr Barclay said that Beresford and Jones had been observed at the scene afterwards and told a policeman that they had been curious about the smoke and wanted to see if the fire brigade had arrived.
Mr Barclay questioned why she had not taken advantage of the situation and told the officer what had happened, as a public spirited citizen.
Jones: “I was wanting to protect Andy and Brett.”
Asked what possible reason Beresford would have for wanting to land her, Jones, “in it”, by giving the evidence he had, she replied; “Presumably he was under the impression it would get him a lighter sentence.”
Summing up, Mr Barclay said that the Crown position was that Jones was involved in an art and part basis “as if she had lit the fuse” herself.
He added: “ It is a matter of law.”
Solicitor Mr Burn maintained there had been lies told on both sides and that if there was a reasonable doubt, then his client was entitled to it.
Sheriff Berry said he accepted he accepted the prosecution evidence and found Jones guilty.
The sheriff called for background report on all three accused.
THE third accused in a Wick fire-raising incident has been found guilty.
Rachel Jones (20) had denied the charge of wilfully setting fire to her former boyfriend’s car causing damage to another vehicle. She will be sentenced along with her co-accused, Andy Beresford and Brett Webster, on October 25, both of whom had previously pleaded guilty.
Wick Sheriff Court heard yesterday that all three had gone to the Hendry house in the early hours of March 4, with a can of diesel, and wearing dark clothes, to avoid detection.
Beresford (18) formerly of Seaforth Avenue, Wick, and now living in Golspie, and Webster (16) of Harrow Terrace, Wick, told the court that Jones had been ‘in’ on the plan to set fire to Christopher Hendry’s car, from the start, and had encouraged them to do it. They told how the trio entered a parking compound at the back of the Hendrys’ home in Wellington Street.
The lads poured some of the fuel over the Seat Leon car but had difficulty in igniting it. They claimed that Jones had come down from the high compound wall and helped them to look for material that would ignite. They didn’t find anything and, in the end, Beresford, took one of his socks off, which served the purpose.
Afterwards, the trio walked up the road, “laughing joking and giggling”, according to Beresford, who told the court that once back at Jones’ home she was “over the moon at what they had done” and was grateful to them.
Christopher Hendry’s Seat Leon went up in flames and his father’s car suffered partial damage.
Giving evidence, today, Jones said that the idea to damage Chrissie’s car had been a topic of conversation in the preceding weeks, but she didn’t take Beresford and Webster seriously. She conceded she had accompanied them to the scene of the fire but denied getting down from the wall to help look for combustible material or supplying a lighter.
Jones said she didn’t see fuel being poured as she was on the other side of the wall and had been unable to get over it.
Her solicitor Alex Burn said: “We have heard evidence that you came down from the wall to help find something to burn.”
Jones: “Absolutely not”. She said she couldn’t see what the boys were doing but heard them talking about the sock” and didn’t witness the car going on fire.
Jones admitted lying at the first police interview but at a second session said that her involvement had been limited to going with Webster and Beresford to the fire scene but had no part in the execution of the crime. She denied taunting her co-accused suggesting they were going to “chicken out” and “didn’t have the guts to do it”.
Jones told Mr Burn said she had not been “a main player” in the incident but on the periphery.
She thought the fire-raising had been bravado on the part of Webster and Beresford and never imagined they would follow it through.
Cross-examined by senior fiscal depute, David Barclay, Jones denied that she had got involved in the fire-raising plot to get back at Christopher Hendry who had not treated her very well when they were together and had two-timed her.
Jones replied that at the time of the fire incident, her relationship with Mr Hendry had been “past history.”
She said that despite the fact, that the boys had gone for diesel and left at the bottom of the stairs in her house, she didn’t question it because she still thought it was all ‘bravado’ and didn’t think they were going to go through with it.
Mr Barclay: “There had been a discussion about the fire, diesel is obtained and taken back to your house and you all leave together for the Hendrys. Did you think you were going for a random walk in Wick. Is that the sort of thing people there do here...wander about in the early hours of the morning with a can of diesel? “
Jones: “Andrew was quite drunk. I thought it was bravado.”
Jones agreed she had not questioned the boys about their intentions, or at least asked what they were going to do with the diesel, again insisting she didn’t think they were going to go through with it.
Mr Barclay: “After the car was set on fire you were laughing and celebrating a good job”
Jones: “That is a complete fabrication.”
Mr Barclay said that Beresford and Jones had been observed at the scene afterwards and told a policeman that they had been curious about the smoke and wanted to see if the fire brigade had arrived.
Mr Barclay questioned why she had not taken advantage of the situation and told the officer what had happened, as a public spirited citizen.
Jones: “I was wanting to protect Andy and Brett.”
Asked what possible reason Beresford would have for wanting to land her, Jones, “in it”, by giving the evidence he had, she replied; “Presumably he was under the impression it would get him a lighter sentence.”
Summing up, Mr Barclay said that the Crown position was that Jones was involved in an art and part basis “as if she had lit the fuse” herself.
He added: “ It is a matter of law.”
Solicitor Mr Burn maintained there had been lies told on both sides and that if there was a reasonable doubt, then his client was entitled to it.
Sheriff Berry said he accepted he accepted the prosecution evidence and found Jones guilty.
The sheriff called for background report on all three accused.