not guilty of unlawfully burning the fishing boat Challenger , despite evidence suggesting he torched the vessel as part of an insurance rip-off scheme.

The five-woman, seven-man jury were given the case by Puisne Judge Mrs. Norma Wade-Miller at 11.40 a.m. yesterday after she instructed them to ignore evidence of an alleged insurance scam which may have involved Simons, his uncle, Police Constable Jerome Simons and the boat's owner Alan Card.

"You must ask yourself if the defendant honestly believed he had permission to burn the boat, or not,'' Mrs. Justice Wade-Miller said.

"You have heard some evidence about insurance money in this case. That is not for you to consider.'' Mrs. Justice Wade-Miller repeated those instructions after the jury had been deliberating for only a few minutes. Almost as soon as they had retired, the jury had a question for the judge, asking what they were to decide if they had "come to believe'' Simons was involved in a plot to defraud the boat's insurers.

"You must not go beyond the issue of whether Simons had permission to burn the boat or not,'' she said.

The judge's instructions reflected a difference in interpretation of the law under which Simons was charged that first surfaced during counsels' final remarks to the jury.

Simons was charged with wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to the 49-foot charter fishing boat Challenger , while it was on a West End slip, on April 2, 1996.

The 28-year-old construction worker said he destroyed the vessel after being offered $5,000 to burn it by his uncle, who he says is a friend of the owner, Alan Card.

On the witness stand, Simons said he did not know why Mr. Card wanted Challenger burned, but as far as he was concerned his uncle told him the owner wanted the boat torched and therefore the job was, "legitimate.'' However, when arrested two days after the fire, Simons told Police he burned Challenger for "any number of reasons,'' one being to help Mr. Card get insurance money for the vessel.

Simons, his uncle Jerome and Mr. Card were all arrested after the fire and the three were charged with conspiring to defraud Mr. Card's insurance company.

Charges against Mr. Card and P.c. Simons were later dropped due to lack of evidence, and Gilbert Simons was left facing the single count of arson.

During the trial Mr. Card said he never gave anyone permission to burn Challenger , although during cross examination he did concede he had "wished hardship on the vessel,'' frequently and admitted to a conversation with Jerome Simons about "a kerosene man,'' but he said, "these were idle sarcastic comments,'' which according to Mr. Card, "meant nothing.'' In his summation, Prosecutor Phillip Storr said the word "unlawfully'' in the charge should be interpreted as meaning "against the law.'' Mr. Storr said there was, in his opinion, no evidence that Mr. Card gave permission for anyone to burn the boat, and therefore Challenger had been burned "unlawfully.'' "However, if you accept that Simons had permission to burn the boat from Mr.

Card, and that permission was given so Simons could help Mr. Card defraud his insurance company,'' Mr. Storr said Simons is guilty of unlawful burning because he had helped in what he knew to be an unlawful act. Defence lawyer Archie Warner urged the Court to take a different view of the word, "unlawful'' in the charge. He argued that "unlawful'' meant "without lawful excuse or justification.'' Mr. Warner said if Simons had reason to "honestly believe'' he was acting on the wishes of the Challenger 's owner, as relayed to him by his uncle, he had in effect "a lawful excuse or justification,'' to burn the boat.

"Simons believed he had been hired to do a legitimate disposal job. As far as my client is concerned, Mr. Card's reasons for having the boat burned are neither here nor there.'' The judge apparently agreed with Mr. Warner's interpretation of the law. She told the jury any evidence of an insurance fraud was, "not for them,'' to consider.

"The law prohibits you from looking beyond the issue of whether permission had been granted, albeit by a third party, or not. And you must do this by interfacing Simons' evidence with Mr. Card's evidence.

"If you find Simons honestly believed he had permission to burn the Challenger , you must acquit him of the charge,'' Mrs. Justice Wade-Miller said.