Convicted thief has prison term reduced to suspended sentence on appeal

A man who stole a woman’s handbag, escaped from police custody, and had cannabis in his possession has had his one year prison term changed to a suspended sentence after the appeals court took into consideration the fact he was a first-time offender.

Ali Ibrahim Wadi in 2015 had been found guilty by the Magistrates’ Court of having, in June of the previous year, stolen a handbag containing various objects, escaped from police custody, refused to give or gave a false version of his particulars to a public official, and of having been in possession of cannabis.

He had been sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and fined €1,000.

In his appeal, the man subsequently filed a case before the Court of Appeal, asking it to confirm the guilty verdict for the escape and cannabis possession, but to revoke the verdict for the other two accusations related to theft and the giving of his particulars.

The appellant also asked the court to, in the case that it confirms his guilty verdict, change his sentence to one which is fairer and just for his case.

In the arguments he brought forward, Wadi raised doubts about the credibility of the witness in the case – who was the same person who suffered the theft – on the basis that she had not immediately reported to the police that her handbag was stolen, but had only done so when she had noticed the appellant at her workplace; a nightclub.

The appellant also pointed out that there were discrepancies in the witness’ story on where the theft had taken place – which she said was in the common area of her apartment building – as well as a lack of credibility on her having correctly identified the man as the person who'd stolen from her.

He said the witness was a lap dancer in the nightclub, and so she could have easily confused the man with another person of Libyan origin since many different men would have frequented the club the night the theft happened.

The court had to differentiate between what the witness was convinced about, and what were the facts, he argued.

The appellant went on to say that his version of events was not given credibility by the first court, nor was the fact that he had no track record when it came to theft.

The first court had argued that, had the appellant been innocent, he would not have escaped police custody, but, in his appeal, the man argued that the court hadn’t considered that he had run away because he was carrying an illegal substance, cannabis.

Not being able to understand English nor Maltese, when arrested, the appellant had thought it was in connection to drugs, but had he known it was about theft, he would not have escaped, he argued.

The appellant also said that it had not been proven that he had given a false name or refused to give information, and, additionally argued that, given his status as a first-time offender, his sentence could have been more equitable.

Having considered the man’s arguments, the Court of Appeal saw that the witness had been consistent regarding the identity of the man who had stolen her handbag and had also given reasons for her certainty that he was the culprit.

It said it was a “frivolous argument” that she could have confused him with someone else because she met the man many in the course of her work.

When he stole from here, she was also able to see his face clearly, the court said, adding that the identification was solid in nature.

Her work as a lap dancer did not diminish her credibility as a witness, it highlighted.

The fact that she didn’t report the theft immediately didn’t mean she wasn’t acting in good faith, in view of the fact that she feared what the appellant might do to her after he had followed her to the common area of her apartment block.

The court also waived any doubt about the date the crime took place, saying the witness had told the police without hesitation that it had happened on 20 June.

Regarding the appellant’s credibility, the appeals court said the man had been inconsistent and evasive with the police.

His clean criminal record, moreover, could not be considered when it came to his responsibility for the crime or his credibility.

The court, however, upheld the appellant’s argument regarding the accusation of not having given his particulars, finding that when the information was demanded of him, he was under arrest, and therefore had the right to remain silent.

It thus freed him of this accusation.

Finally, when it came to the man’s argument that his sentencing was not fair, the court decided that – while the punishment imposed by the first court was within the legal parameters – it would be taking into consideration the man’s clean criminal record and therefore applying to full effect the section of the criminal code relating to suspended sentences of imprisonment.

It went on to confirm the man’s guilty verdict relating to theft, escaping from custody and possession of cannabis but changed his sentence to one of 12 months in prison suspended for four years.

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Rene Darmanin appeared for the appellant.

Judge Edwina Grima presided.