Pastizzi shop holdup getaway driver charged

A man from Gzira has been denied bail after he was charged with being an accomplice in the robbery of a Qormi pastizzeria in March.

Takeaway worker Hubert Gatt, 32, was arraigned before magistrate Josette Demicoli this afternoon, accused of theft, aggravated by violence, value and time.

Inspectors Lydon Zammit, Stephen Gulia and Kevin Pulis told the court that the police had arrested Gatt after investigating an armed robbery at a pastizzeria in Qormi on 30 March at 8pm. He said the police had first arrested Jeremy Borg, who was facing separate proceedings and made several other arrests. After being picked up by the police, Gatt had confirmed in a statement that he had been driving the getaway car.

Gatt’s lawyer, Ishmael Psaila, entered an emphatic “not guilty” plea on behalf of the accused and requested bail.

The prosecution objected to the man’s release from arrest, arguing that the offence was a grave one and that his criminal record showed that he was not to be trusted. Moreover, there were still civilian witnesses yet to testify.

Psaila argued that the charges dated back four months and that the prosecution had informed the court that the magisterial inquiry into the incident had been closed, preserving the evidence. In addition, the person alleged to have committed the robbery was also in custody.

“Just because someone is asked to give a lift to someone and does so is not grounds to be charged.”

But Inspector Pulis rebutted, saying that in the four months since the incident, the police were collecting evidence. “We are here to bring the best evidence. We have eyewitnesses who were found after the magisterial inquiry was concluded, and the accused knows them well,” said the inspector.

Psaila commented that it was “worrying” to hear that the police had continued to investigate after closing inquiry and added, “he was out for three months; did he approach any witnesses?”

The court, however, denied bail at this stage, Magistrate Demicoli stating that she did not see the accused as satisfying the guarantees set out in the law, also because of the witnesses who were yet to testify.