A man convicted of theft after helping his landlord friend remove items from a club leased out to a defaulting third party had his four-year jail term quashed on appeal.

Christopher Schembri, 37, had landed in hot water after George Galea, the owner of the premises formerly housing the Marsa Boċċi Club, had turned to him for help to clear out the place. It was to be leased to a new tenant after the current one had reportedly fallen behind on rent payments.

One night in August 2011, some Hifi and light equipment, together with alcoholic drinks and cash, went missing from the club, prompting the tenant to file a police report.

Investigations subsequently led to the arrest of Mr Schembri who was charged with aggravated theft, voluntary damage to third party property and relapsing. 

The man protested his innocence but was declared guilty by a Magistrates’ Court in 2016, landing a four-year jail term. 

An appeal was lodged, with the accused’s lawyer arguing that although the accused had been following the instructions of the owner, the latter himself had not faced any criminal repercussions. 

Moreover, the accused had no idea the objects were being stolen since he had simply meant to lend the owner a helping hand as requested and had even stored some of the “stolen”’ items inside his own garage where the police later found them.

Asked whether it had ever crossed his mind that this was a case of theft, the accused had replied, “how could they have been stolen if he owned the boċċi club, as president? Why should he steal his own belongings?”

The owner’s partner had testified confirming her presence when her partner had asked the accused for help. 

So had the tenant, the victim of the alleged theft, given his version, pointing an accusing finger at the landlord and saying that it was he who had “landed the accused in trouble”.

The owner himself chose not to testify.

The police report had also noted that the suspect thief had gained entry by “probably using a key to open the front aluminium door and forcing open the padlock into the second iron door”.

According to the tenant, the only other person who had a key was the owner.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, observed that although there was no doubt that the accused was involved in the removal of the items, the prosecution had failed to prove that he had intended to steal.

There was a lingering doubt as to whether the accused had been drawn into the affair by the owner who had sought to take the law into his own hands, a case of exercising a pretended right. 

Nor had it been proven that the accused had actually caused the damage when forcing open the padlock, the Court said, thereby clearing him of all criminal liability.

Lawyer David Gatt assisted the accused.