AN ‘INEPT’ Carlisle arsonist who wanted to take "revenge" on a man who had been photographed with his ex-partner set fire to the wrong vehicle.

Nathan Bell, 27, who was encouraged to act by “so-called friends,” carried out the attack in full view of CCTV cameras, though he felt so guilty the following day he handed himself in to the police.

The defendant, of Reeth Road, Carlisle, admitted arson.

Prosecutor Sophie Johnstone outlined how Bell carried out the attack on the evening of January 9. The entire incident was captured by CCTV cameras which were positioned near to the victim’s home.

The van that Bell set fire to was owned by the man who owned the business the defendant worked for, said the prosecutor.

Miss Johnstone said: "The defendant is seen parking his van on the corner with Park Close, he alights his van and walks into the driveway where the complainant’s van was parked.

"The defendant can be seen on footage carrying a jerry can of fuel in his hand and thereafter the vehicle is set alight." Having done this, Bell goes back to his car and drives away.

But the day after the attack, Bell handed himself in at the city’s Durranhill Police HQ, confirming that he had set the van on fire in Scotby and apologising for his actions.

“He said he’d seen a social media image of his ex-partner with another male and that appears to have been the motive,” said Miss Johnstone. In a victim personal statement, the van’s owner explained the impact of the offence.

He said it had cost almost £7,000 to have the van repaired and it had also cost him a further £5,000 in lost earnings.

If his son had not woken him after the fire was started, it could have been much worse, he said.

The man added: “It caused a lot of stress to me and my family. We kept playing it over and over in our heads as to why it happened.

"Every little noise puts us on edge.”

He had lost count of the number of people who had asked him what he had done to so upset somebody.

Gerard Rogerson, defending, said the defendant was “highly apologetic” about his actions. “This was a stupid impulse, on which he acted,” said Mr Rogerson.

The defendant had been “emboldened by so-called friends” who had shown him pictures of his former partner with another man and that had triggered feelings of loss and an outburst of jealousy.

He thus armed himself with a jerry can and a balaclava and set off intent on damaging the van, though the court heard that he was assailed by doubts about whether he had targeted the correct address.

He had not.

“It was a rather inept enterprise," continued Mr Rogerson. "He decided on the way not to wear the balaclava… He parked his vehicle in plain sight in a way which was visible to CCTV cameras and the occupants of the house."

After the offence, Bell lost his job but he was now back in employment.

He had reduced his substance misuse and moved away from the "chaotic lifestyle" he was living at the time, when he mixed with the wrong type of people, drinking too much, and making “stupid decisions.”

But he had no pyromaniac tendencies, said Mr Rogerson.

Mr Rogerson continued: “He surrendered himself to the police station after a sleepless night when he was full of remorse. He attended the police station with his blackened hands and a guilty conscience.”

Recorder Julian Shaw told Bell: “The kind of stupidity demonstrated by the graphic [CCTV] images of your offending on January 8 is not generally associated with people of your age.

“You are not a stupid teenager, who committed what is perceived to be an act of revenge out of bravado. You are 27 years old, and a father of two children. What you did on January 8, frankly, beggars belief.”

The judge said it was an “extraordinary fluke” that Bell had not inflicted upon himself potentially life-changing injuries.

“You have seen it go up,” said the judge. “How that didn’t set you on fire or cause a secondary explosion from the jerry can... You need to be extremely grateful to those looking down on you from above.”

Recorder Shaw added: “This is serious offending.

“This is, in my judgement, a high culpability case. You can’t avoid the consequences of your actions. You went out, you obtained a jerry can and you drove up and down the road looking for the property.

“As it turns out, it was completely the wrong property.”

But the Recorder said the well-focused defence submissions had highlighted positive features of personal mitigation. The defendant’s remorse was genuine. The judge imposed a 16-month jail term, suspended for two years.

The sentence includes 25 rehabilitation activity days and 200 hours of unpaid work. Bell must also pay compensation of £3,500 to the van’s owner at a rate of £70 per week.

As the case ended, Bell, who wept through the latter stages of the hearing, said from the dock of the court: “I want to apologise personally.”