Appeals court clears Gozo man of setting woman's garage on fire

A 41-year-old man from Xagħra in Gozo has had his three year prison sentence for setting a woman’s garage on fire overturned on appeal.

Madam justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, presiding the Court of Criminal Appeal, ruled that the case against care worker, Jimmy Mifsud, had been built on circumstantial evidence and that there was no solid proof of his guilt.

The judge remarked that the police could have been more careful in their investigations, noting that the mere fact that a car mirror was found in the area, and that CCTV footage showed that he had been in the vicinity when the garage was set ablaze, did not mean that he was the person who started the fire.

It was in April 2020 that a woman had filed a police report against the accused, who she said, would pester her to go out with him. Mifsud had been spoken to by the police on the same day as the arson, but had denied any connection to the fire.

The appeals court noted that the Court of Magistrates had based its finding of guilt on three considerations; the fact that a car mirror found on the road belonged to the accused’s vehicle, paint marks matching the car’s bumper found on the garage’s door, and mobile localisation data.

There was no doubt that the accused’s vehicle had a missing wing mirror and that a mirror was found in the area near the fire, but the prosecution had failed to prove that it belonged to the accused’s vehicle, said the court. Mifsud had claimed to have lost his mirror some two or three months, before the incident, in a parking lot.

Paint fragments extracted from the man’s car and the garage door, were both composed of titanium dioxide, a white pigment, but this was a common chemical used in car paint finishes, noted the court. Other black paint marks on the door were 42 inches above the ground, whilst the vehicle’s bumper was 16 inches off the ground.

A court-appointed expert who was meant to establish the man’s mobile phone location had submitted a document from a service provider, which was not signed, and its contents were not confirmed by oath by the person issuing it. The accuracy of the data was at a 3–5 km radius, noted the court. A disclaimer by the service provider on the localisation data report, further undermined its credibility.

The court noted several shortcomings in the prosecution’s evidence, both scientific and technical, commenting that evidence that the accused was in the area on the day in question, was not sufficient for the finding of guilt.

The court overturned Mifsud’s conviction.

Lawyer Mario Scerri was defence counsel.