he was offered $5,000 to burn a fishing boat "beggars belief'', a jury was told yesterday.

And the fact that he set the 49-foot Challenger on fire shortly before midnight showed he knew he was doing something illegal, Crown Counsel Philip Storr told the jury, which is due to start deliberations on Monday.

But lawyer Archie Warner, representing the 28-year-old construction worker, said his client "honestly'' had reason to believe that he had permission from the boat's owner, Alan Card, to torch the vessel.

Both Mr. Storr and Mr. Warner made their closing arguments yesterday after the jury heard Simons tell how his uncle, a Police constable, had asked him to set the boat on fire on behalf of Mr. Card and that he thought he was doing a "legitimate'' disposal job.

Simons told the Court he set the fire after being offered $5,000 to do so by his uncle, P.c. Jerome Simons, whom he believed was acting on behalf of Mr.

Card.

"My attitude was: if the guy wants to burn his boat,'' he said as he shrugged his shoulders, "he wants to burn his boat. If he wants to pay me, he can pay me.'' Simons was originally charged in August along with Mr. Card and P.c. Simons with conspiring to burn the boat and defraud Card's insurance company.

Charges against Mr. Card and P.c. Simons were dropped after a preliminary inquiry in Magistrates' Court, and Gilbert Simons was left facing trial for a single count of wilfully and unlawfully setting the fire.

Mr. Storr, summing up, said that as Simons admitted burning the vessel, there were few disputed facts in the case. He said the jury would have to consider their interpretation of the law as it applied to the charge of unlawfully setting the fire.

Near midnight on April 1, Simons burned the Challenger as it lay on the slip at Robinson's Marina. He was arrested on April 4 and told Police he set the fire after being approached by his uncle who, Simons believed, was acting on behalf of Alan Card or his son Ian.

When asked by Police why Mr. Card wanted his boat burned, Simons said there were "any number of reasons,'' either, he said, so Card senior could get the insurance money, or so Card junior could have revenge, because Alan Card had been sleeping with Ian Card's wife.

On the stand yesterday Simons said his original statements to the Police were inaccurate. He said he had no way of knowing at the time what Card's motives for hiring him were. "I thought it was legitimate,'' he said.

When asked by Mr. Storr why he originally told Police he was being hired either for revenge or for helping Card get insurance money he said: "When you're in a situation like that, you can't think properly.'' Jury to deliberate on Challenger arson case On the first day of the trial, Mr. Card gave evidence saying he had not authorised anyone to burn his boat.

Under cross examination by Mr. Warner, Mr. Card admitted frequently mentioning to P.c. Simons that he found his 26-year old vessel expensive and irksome to maintain, "but I was making idle sarcastic comments'', Card said.

"Some time before the fire, Jerome said: `It's not too late to get the man with the kerosene.' I took it to mean nothing.'' Mr. Warner asked Mr. Card why he did not tell his friend that he did not want his boat burned. "I had no reason to,'' he said.

In his summing up before the jury, Mr. Warner said his client, "honestly had reason to believe'' he was acting on Card's orders as relayed to him by his uncle.

"It is not an offence to burn a boat, or any other piece of property,'' Mr.

Warner said. "If you had a bike you didn't want, and you said to someone, `hey, I don't want this thing, hire someone to get rid of it for me. I don't care how you do it, just get it done', that is not illegal.'' According to Mr.

Warner, Simons was asked to do a job by his uncle, a man who he knew had a close association with the boat's owner.

"He did a job he thought was legitimate. That cannot be against the law,'' he argued.

The issue, said Mr. Storr, is whether the jury believes Simons acted unlawfully or not.

"You have heard from Mr. Card who said he never gave anyone permission to burn his boat. If you do not believe that Mr. Simons had permission from Mr.

Card -- and I suggest to you he did not -- then he was acting unlawfully. It is an offence to destroy another person's property without their permission.'' Similarly, Mr. Storr argued, if Simons believed he was hired by Ian Card, who did not own the boat, to have revenge on Alan Card, that is also an offence.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you believe Mr. Simons did have Alan Card's permission, and there was indeed a conspiracy to defraud the insurance company, then Mr. Simons must have known he was helping Mr. Card commit an illegal act.

"If that is the case, then Mr. Simons burned the boat unlawfully,'' Mr. Storr said.

He said Mr. Simons' story "beggars belief''. He said no person would be so "blindly unquestioning,'' in accepting an offer to burn a boat in return for money.

"If Mr. Simons thought everything was above board, that he was merely being asked to do a legitimate job for Mr. Card, why did he go down to Robinson's just before midnight, when he knew no-one was around? "I suggest to you Mr. Simons went there in the dead of night to torch the Challenger because he knew what he was doing was illegal and he didn't want to get caught.''