A construction worker has been cleared of stealing jiggers from a Valletta construction site for lack of evidence.
Patrick Cassar, 44, of Qawra had been accused of aggravated theft after two jiggers worth close to €3,000 went missing from the site in St Paul Street in October 2020.
CCTV footage from the site showed a man entering the room where tools were stored. He left soon afterwards, carrying two ‘bags.’ Footage from other security cameras further down St Paul Street showed the suspect walking along, ‘suitcases’ in hand.
Investigators identified the suspect as Cassar who at the time should have been home in terms of a previously-imposed court curfew that applied after 8pm.
His home was searched but the missing items were not found. Nor did the officers find any clothes similar to the ones worn by the suspected thief in the footage, the court was told.
Cassar was charged with aggravated theft, breaching bail conditions, committing the alleged crime while under probation, breaching the terms of a conditional discharge as well as relapsing.
He pleaded not guilty.
The crux of the case concerned the identification of the suspect seen entering the premises on CCTV footage.
A police constable assigned extra-duty watch at the construction site said that he recognized Cassar as one of the workers at the Valletta site and had identified him in the footage through his gait and tattoos.
The building contractor in charge of the Valletta works, testified that Cassar had last reported for duty the Friday before the alleged theft. That day he needed to call at Sedqa and also had to settle some local council fines.
Since that day, Cassar had not reported for work.
Magistrate Elaine Rizzo observed that a witness, even if a police officer, must testify about the circumstances leading to the identification of the suspect.
Were there any characteristic features? Did the witness compare the suspect to other workers at the site? Did he identify the suspect independently of the site to which he was associated?
The court observed further that such testimony had to be supported by other evidence, particularly forensic evidence.
When all was considered the court said that the policeman’s testimony alone did not satisfy the degree of proof expected of the prosecution.
CCTV footage and stills from the CVA (controlled vehicular access) system in Valletta were also presented as evidence.
The court observed that although the stature and gait of the suspect resembled those of the accused, the tattoos were not visible. Nor was the suspect’s face clearly visible.
As for the CVA stills, they proved that a car registered in the name of Cassar’s partner had entered the city at 7.32pm and exited at 8.39pm that October evening.
But those images did not prove that Cassar was driving his partner’s car.
When all was considered, there was nothing concrete beyond the realm of probability to link the accused to the theft. And since the other charges depended on a finding of guilt on the first charge, the court cleared the accused of all criminal liability.
Lawyers Mario Mifsud and Nicholas Mifsud were defence counsel.