Update 2 | Nine years' imprisonment for attempted aggravated theft

The trial by jury of 25-year-old Jonathan Felice, accused of grievously injuring an elderly woman during an attempted house robbery, ended today with a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for the attempted crime of aggravated theft.

Felice was also condemned to pay the costs of the case, amounting to €970.

The jury returned a guilty verdict after a relatively brief period of deliberation.

Felice trial for his part in an attempted house robbery in 2006 in which an 81-year-old-woman was injured.

Felice was convicted of attempted aggravated theft and causing slight injury on six votes to three, but found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm.

Judge Michael Mallia took into Felice’s voluminous criminal record and relative youth in awarding the sentence, which is close to the maximum for the offences.

Felice was 17 years old when he had broken into the home of 81-year-old Dolores Debono in 2006, together with two other unidentified men. He had chosen to testify to the jury, and denied being present during the robbery, saying that the victim had recognised him because he used to play in the street near her house as a child.

Lawyers Giannella Busuttil and Nadia Attard from the Attorney General's office prosecuted.

Lawyers Leslie Cuschieri  and Anna Portelli, defended Felice.

The jury, composed of eight men and three women listened intently as Mr. Justice Michael Mallia explained the relevant principles of criminal law and procedure in the context of the case at hand.

Of the three assailants, only one – alleged by the prosecution to be Felice – did not have a face covering. Debono had testified at the compilation stage that Felice was the one who held her down, injuring her, while the others ransacked her house.

Felice had chosen to testify to the jury, telling the court that he was not present during the robbery and that the victim had recognised him because he used to play in the street near her house as a child.

Felice's version of events, however, was taken apart by lawyers Giannella Busuttil and Nadia Attard from the Attorney General's office earlier this week, who pointed out that the victim had recognised the accused on four separate occasions - two identification parades, in photographs shown to her by the police and finally in court when she testified in his compilation of evidence.

The victim was not called to testify in the trial on account of her age, the AG choosing instead to rely on the testimony she gave during the compilation of evidence.

The victim was never cross-examined by the defence.

Referring to this during his summing up, the judge pointed out that the defence might complain that the prosecution took seven years to begin proceedings, but on the other hand the defence had seven years to table their request to cross examine the victim.

However Mr. Justice Mallia was at pains to point out that this was no fault of the accused’s current counsel, lawyers Leslie Cuschieri  and Anna Portelli, who had only taken up the brief last year.