Carla Maree Monaghan: Cause of Miami unit fire still a mystery

There’s no direct evidence to prove a former nanny from the Gold Coast deliberately lit a fire which tore through a Miami unit, a court has been told.

Fire and rescue trucks at the scene of a fire.

THERE’S no direct evidence to prove a former nanny from the Gold Coast deliberately lit a fire which tore through a Miami unit, a court has been told.

Experts who took to the witness box in Carla Maree Monaghan’s arson trial in Southport District Court this week “couldn’t exclude an electrical fault”, argued defence lawyer Mark Jackson.

“We still don’t know how the fire was caused,” he told the jury during closing addresses on Friday.

However, Crown prosecutor Michael Mitchell said Monaghan had motive to light the fire inside the unit.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE GOLD COAST BULLETIN - JUST $1 FOR THE FIRST 28 DAYS

The fire started after a volatile argument between 34-year-old Monaghan, her former partner and their housemate on the night of October 26, 2016.

“She bit him on the cheek and about an hour later she targeted his possessions,” Mr Mitchell said.

He told the court the fire was not “a coincidence” considering the animosity beforehand.

Mr Mitchell said it was clear Monaghan “intended to set (the unit) alight”, or that she “deliberately set fire to an item in the bedroom and was aware the unit was likely to catch fire”.

Mr Jackson said a ceiling fan was a “possible source of an electrical fault”.

But Mr Mitchell said statistics showed only 0.178 per cent of fires were caused by the devices.

“What are the chances?” he said.

The Southport District Court has been told the cause of the fire remains uncertain. Photos

MORE NEWS

Second M1: Residents’ furious reaction to new map

Huge blow for Titans

Cash injection for Coast roads

Mr Mitchell also said Monaghan provided differing versions of events to her body corporate and two police officers.

“What she says is an attempt to deflect from her involvement in starting that fire,” he said.

Mr Jackson said the fire was “pretty intense” and Monaghan may have been “trying to work out what the hell happened” after the blaze.

If Monaghan was lying she was “doing a really bad job of that”, he said.

Mr Jackson said Monaghan had been drinking on the night and the fire must have been “terrifying”.

Monaghan would not have set fire to the unit with her own possessions inside, he argued.

Mr Mitchell said there was evidence from neighbours that Monaghan was in the unit alone before the fire started.

Monaghan has pleaded not guilty to arson.

The trial continues before Judge Katherine McGinness.