A judge has overturned a two-year jail term for theft, saying the first court had skirted the defendant’s testimony and important evidence related to the case had been destroyed in a fire at the law courts.

In May 2001 the police had been called to investigate a robbery at a Sliema apartment, after several items worth more than €2,330 including cash and a computer went missing. Subsequently, Mohammed Sharfid, who was then 26 years, was charged in connection with the case and convicted.

In his appeal, Mr Sharfid argued that the first court had not taken in consideration all the facts related to the case, for the simple reason that some acts had been destroyed by a fire in part of the law courts. A technical report from a court-appointed expert which included the testimony of the victim was among the documents which had been gutted.

While acknowledging that the report was no longer in existence, the first court had said that a wallet, credit cards, a computer worth €3,700 and a driving licence, “of intrinsic value to the case” had gone missing.

In this respect the appeals court upheld the man’s argument saying that the first court had “assumed the existence” of some stolen items, while noting that their value had been overestimated.

The defendant had also complained that his testimony had not been included in the acts of the case. Furthermore, no reference to his version of events had been made in the first judgment, though it had included the line of the defence of his lawyer.

In his testimony, the man had justified his fingerprints on the apartment’s door, saying he used to frequent the place as he needed money and so used to prostitute himself there. However, no fingerprints was found inside the apartment. In addition, he argued that his lawyer had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the victim.

The appeals court noted that a month before the first court was due to give its sentence, the case was handed over to another member of the judiciary as the first magistrate had been promoted to judge.

In such circumstances, the first court should have at least called the defendant to give his testimony once again, especially as his evidence had not been included in the acts of the case, the judge pointed out.

This, in spite of the fact that the defendant had testified just five months before the sentence. It would have also been more desirable, for the first court to hear once again the submissions from all parties, prior to give its judgment, the appeals court ruled.

For these reasons Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti concluded that it could not reach the same conclusions of the first court, and consequently revoked the man’s conviction.