Appeals court upholds conviction for serious assault

The Criminal Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by Joe Zahra, confirming his conviction and 33-month prison sentence for causing serious injuries to Timothy Mangion and damaging a Ford vehicle, in a case that dates back to October 2018 in Birkirkara.

The appeal was heard by Judge Neville Camilleri on 30 October 2025. Zahra sought to overturn his conviction for the first charge, causing serious wounds with an irregular weapon, or, alternatively, to have his sentence reduced.

The original incident took place on 9 October 2018 in Birkirkara. Zahra faced five charges: causing serious injuries to Mangion, assaulting and insulting police officers, property damage, and breaching bail conditions.

The Court of Magistrates had acquitted him on charges of assaulting and insulting police officers, as well as breaching bail, but found him guilty of causing serious injuries and property damage. The court also imposed a three-year restraint order in favour of Mangion and ordered Zahra to pay over €5,600 in expert costs.

Central to the appeal were conflicting accounts of what happened. Mangion claimed Zahra, under the influence of cocaine and vodka, attacked him with scissors after mistaking him for a police officer, causing significant lacerations. Zahra maintained that Mangion, who allegedly wielded scissors and demanded money, was the aggressor, and that he only resisted.

Expert reports confirmed Zahra had consumed cocaine, though the alleged cannabis consumption could not be definitively proven. The court found Mangion’s account more credible, noting the nature of his injuries aligned with his testimony.

The court also examined the appellant’s claims of self-defence and provocation. Zahra argued he acted in self-defence and that any excess in force was due to shock or fear. The Appeals Court rejected these arguments, ruling that self-defence only applies if a person reacts proportionately to an unjust and immediate threat. As Zahra was found to have initiated the aggression, his defence could not succeed. Claims of provocation were similarly dismissed, as Mangion’s actions were considered defensive.

The court also noted that the original 33-month prison sentence was within legal bounds and appropriate for acts of violence, which generally warrant custodial sentences. The Appeal Court confirmed the sentence in its entirety, with terms commencing on the date of the decision.