New fingerprint software identifies 2008 jewellery burglar

Victor Stellini was handed a two-year probation after new fingerprint matching software identified him as the culprit in a 2008 Sliema apartment burglary 

The case was solved 10 years later
The case was solved 10 years later

A change in fingerprint matching software led police to successfully prosecute a man for a burglary that took place ten years ago.

Magistrate Neville Camilleri heard Inspectors Fabian Fleri and Lydon Zammit charge 40-year-old Victor Stellini of St. Julian’s with aggravated theft from a Sliema apartment and recidivism.

Stellini was accused of stealing jewellery from the apartment in January 2008.

Defence lawyer Chris Frendo argued that the case was time barred. “As it is time barred there should be no arrest,” said the lawyer. The Magistrate however said it was not the court’s remit to decide if the case is time barred.

Inspector Fleri clarified. The man’s fingerprints had been in the police’s possession at the time, but were not initially checked as he was not a suspect. When the police’s digital fingerprint database was created in 2013, the system triggered an alert. The accused was traced to the UK in 2015 and extradited from Crete two weeks ago. The fact that a European Arrest Warrant had been issued in 2015 meant that the case was not time-barred, submitted the inspector.

The Court ruled the arrest valid.

The accused, who told the court he was a skipper pleaded guilty to the charges. Warned that he was facing prison, the man appeared resigned to his fate. “There’s no escaping this,” he said, as he confirmed his guilty plea.

The prosecution said that the case dates back ten years and that the accused was last found guilty of a crime in 2009. His criminal record shows that he had a drug problem for a time, but after spending time in prison, the accused had left Malta to avoid falling back into bad company. “Today he is clean and in employment. He is on the right track,” said the inspector. The prosecution said a custodial sentence would be detrimental in this case.

The defence submitted that not only did Stellini reform but he had also tried to make things right. The lawyer asked for a ban on the publication of Stellini’s name as it would “destroy his life,” but the court refused, saying the reason given was not valid at law.

Stellini was sentenced to probation for two years.