Two teenagers sentenced to 10 years over restaurant arson attack in London
Two 17-year-olds have been jailed for 10 years for an arson attack on an Indian restaurant in east London that left two diners with severe burns. The judge described the attack as cold-blooded and highly planned.
Two teenagers, now aged 17, have been sentenced to 10 years in prison for their roles in an arson attack on the Indian Aroma restaurant in Gants Hill, east London, which left diners with life-changing injuries.
The attack took place in August 2025. The pair, armed with machetes, held the restaurant's doors shut while a third person poured fuel around the room and set it alight. Both teenagers, who cannot be named due to their age, had denied the charges but were found guilty of arson with intent to endanger life.
A married couple in their twenties were dining at the restaurant when the masked attackers struck. Petrol was poured over the woman, causing severe burns that melted her clothing into her skin. She was placed in a medically induced coma to help her recover from burns covering 50% of her body surface, 45% of which were full-thickness. Her husband ran from the restaurant while on fire and suffered mixed-depth burns to more than half of his body.
Judge's remarks
The prosecution described the incident as completely traumatic and appalling, saying it had transformed the victims' lives. One victim spoke of agonising physical pain, while another said their life had been upended.
Sentencing the pair on Friday, Judge Michael Grieve KC called the attack sophisticated and professional, carried out with a high degree of planning. He said the defendants had been fully aware that their actions would almost inevitably cause serious harm, potentially including death, to complete strangers, and had acted in cold blood. He added that he believed the operation had been directed by an older, more experienced criminal who has not yet been identified.
Defence lawyers argued that the petrol had not been deliberately poured on the victims' shoulders and had not been ignited while all customers were still seated. One of the defendants expressed, through his barrister, that he was sorry for the painful and life-changing injuries caused, and asked the court not to impose a sentence so long that it would deny him the chance to build a different future.
