A man and a woman convicted over a string of thefts and for breaching previous court orders have had their jail terms almost halved on appeal. 

Stephen Borg, 42, and Antonella Vella, 36, had landed more than 21 years imprisonment between them after being found guilty three years ago.

The series of garage thefts date back to 2013 and 2015 and two attempts had resulted in botched attempts. 

A variety of items, including wooden chairs, tools, vehicle accessories, fans, shoes and emergency lights, had gone missing from properties in Santa Venera, Birkirkara and Qormi.

The duo had also been convicted of willful damage to third party property on eight different occasions.

Borg was separately declared guilty of breaching a suspended sentence and four different bail decrees, thus forfeiting €28,000 in bail bonds, besides his personal liberty.

Vella too was found guilty of breaching a suspended sentence, a conditional discharge as well as three bail decrees, forfeiting €20,000 in bail money while facing re-arrest.

When the case went to the appeal stage, the appellants argued that the suspended sentences which the Magistrates’ Court had ordered to be put into effect, had been rendered operative by another court, pending this appeal. 

The appellants were “factually right” on this point, said the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja, observing that applying the same suspended sentence would effectively mean that the appellants would be punished twice. 

As for Vella’s previous conditional discharge, Mr Justice Bugeja observed that no court of criminal justice could assume that a judgment was final simply because that “is what the prosecution has presented.”

A court is not “legally and reasonably correct” in taking note of such judgment for sentencing purposes, failing proof that the judgment is final.

As for the various breaches of bail, the court observed that each of the appellants had already been convicted for breaching one particular bail decree by a previous judgement.

Finally, turning to the charge of recidivism, Mr Justice Bugeja remarked that this aggravating factor was not to be “taken lightly” by the courts since it could “seriously impact” the nature and quantum of punishment to be imposed. 

It was not enough for the prosecution to prove the identity of the accused and to present a simple copy of their criminal record, but an authentic copy of previous convictions was to be put forward, together with proof that the conviction was confirmed when judgment became final and that the punishment was served or forgiven.

In this case, the prosecution had failed to prove that the convictions were final, said the court, adding that the appellants could not be declared guilty of relapsing.

In light of all evidence, the court partially upheld the appeal and varied punishment accordingly by condemning each of the appellants to a six-year jail term.

The sums to be forfeited for breaching bail were also reduced to €18,000 for Borg and €10,000 in respect of Vella.

Lawyer David Gatt assisted the appellants.