Starmer’s sister-in-law ‘scared’ after arson attack on her home, court hears

Starmer s sister in law scared – The Old Bailey courtroom on Tuesday received a harrowing account of a fire incident that occurred at the home of Judith Alexander, the sister-in-law of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. According to Alexander’s testimony, the blaze at her property in Kentish Town, north London, left her in a state of panic, struggling to breathe as she tried to protect her family. The event took place on 12 May 2025, when the fire was discovered at the entrance of Starmer’s rented residence, which had been occupied by Alexander. The attack is part of a series of incidents targeting the prime minister, with three individuals—Roman Lavrynovych (22), Petro Pochynok (35), and Stanislav Carpiuc (27)—accused of being responsible for the damage. All three are Ukrainian nationals, with Carpiuc additionally identified as a Romanian-born resident of London.

Testimony of the Victim

During the trial, Alexander recounted the moment she became aware of the fire. She was awake in bed, scrolling through her phone at 01:00 BST, when she heard two loud bangs that startled her. Describing the noise as akin to “two wheelie bins being thrown at the door,” she said the sound was immediate and unsettling. Looking out of her window, she observed thick black smoke rising into the night sky, with a visible orange glow emanating from the point where the door had been.

“All of a sudden I heard two bangs,” Alexander said. “It was very loud and sounded like two wheelie bins had been thrown at the door.”

She explained that her partner was asleep beside her while her daughter, who was in a room downstairs, was also resting. The daughter, reportedly frightened, entered Alexander’s bedroom to warn her about the smell of smoke before distributing “Covid masks” to everyone in the house. “The house was full of smoke. I have asthma and was struggling to breathe,” Alexander added. The intensity of the situation was further emphasized when she reflected on the aftermath of the fire brigade’s arrival. “The realisation of what happened really hit me” after the flames were extinguished, she said, highlighting her fear that her daughter’s room—located directly above the fire—might have been at risk had she not awoken.

As the trial progressed, the court was informed of the broader context of the attacks. The fire at Alexander’s home was not an isolated incident. Three days earlier, on 8 May 2025, a Toyota car previously owned by Sir Keir Starmer was found burning on the same street. Subsequently, a fire broke out at flats connected to the prime minister in nearby Islington. These events suggest a pattern of targeted vandalism, with the accused individuals allegedly orchestrating the incidents to disrupt the family’s living conditions.

Defendants’ Allegations and Statements

The three defendants are charged with conspiring to damage property by fire between 1 April and 13 May 2025. Lavrynovych, in particular, faces additional counts of intentionally endangering life during the fires at two properties in north London. He also admits to being reckless about whether life was put at risk. The charges imply a coordinated effort involving not just the three individuals but “others” who may have contributed to the scheme.

On Thursday, the court was told of police interviews with the accused, which revealed key details about their alleged involvement. Lavrynovych, who is said to have been recruited by a Russian-speaking Telegram user named ‘El Money’, initially denied any connection to the fires. During the interview, he claimed he was at home on the dates of the first two incidents and had visited his friend Petro Pochynok in Camden on the third. He was shown phone data linking him to the locations, yet he maintained his story. When asked if someone had instructed him to start the fires, Lavrynovych hesitated before replying, “I think you need to speak to a different person.”

“I don’t know, I never saw this person,” he said. “Are you saying someone’s asked you to set fire to these three addresses?” the officer pressed. “Yes,” Lavrynovych answered.

Lavrynovych provided a prepared statement, revealing that ‘El’ had offered him £1,500 to investigate CCTV footage and had given specific instructions regarding two of the targeted addresses. “He said that once done, he would pay me and I trusted him,” he explained. “I needed the money. He has not paid me though,” he added, expressing frustration over the unpaid reward. He also mentioned that ‘El’ had threatened him, asserting that he would have to carry out the arson because the perpetrator knew his address. “I was scared as my grandmother lives at the same address and I could not be sure that he would not do anything,” Lavrynovych said.

Carpiuc and Pochynok, meanwhile, remained silent during their police interviews. Their lack of comments may indicate either a strategy to avoid confrontation or an unwillingness to provide further details. The trial, which is expected to last three weeks, will now focus on establishing the defendants’ motivations and the extent of their involvement in the series of fires. As the case unfolds, the court will examine whether the attacks were acts of personal vendetta, political statement, or criminal enterprise.