Appeals court confirms five-year prison sentence for serial shop thief

The Court of Criminal Appeal has confirmed a five-year prison sentence and a €5,000 fine handed down to a man in connection with a string of aggravated thefts.

The case dates back to November 2020, when Matthew Camilleri was involved in several thefts and attempted thefts across Birkirkara, Santa Venera, and Balzan. The court heard how the appellant employed a specific modus operandi involving a female accomplice, Sarah Zammit. Zammit would enter a shop to distract the cashier, allowing Camilleri to enter and steal the cash register drawer.

In his appeal, Camilleri challenged the admissibility of Zammit’s testimony, arguing that as an accomplice, her evidence should be discarded. He further contested the reliability of an eyewitness who identified him despite the perpetrator wearing a mask, and questioned circumstantial evidence involving a Peugeot vehicle and mobile phone location data.

The court dismissed these arguments, noting that Zammit’s testimony was legally admissible because criminal proceedings against her had already been concluded. The court also found that the eyewitness identification was credible due to the witness’s close proximity to the accused during the crime. Furthermore, phone localisation data placed Camilleri in the vicinity of the thefts, contradicting his claims.

The court also addressed a charge of resisting arrest in Gżira, where Camilleri had struggled with police officers to the point of falling to the ground. The judge ruled that this physical contact constituted more than mere disobedience and satisfied the legal requirements for resisting arrest.

During the appeal process, the court had assumed the functions of a Drug Court and referred Camilleri to the Rehabilitation Board for Persons with Drug Dependence. However, the Board later reported that Camilleri had failed to successfully complete the programme.

In its final considerations, the court observed that Camilleri’s criminal record showed a "refractory" nature. The judge remarked that the appellant had been given a "golden opportunity" to reform through the Drug Court but had failed to show the necessary commitment to change his life. 

The court subsequently confirmed the original sentence in its entirety.