Stole furniture from sick man 'as payment'

The Court of Criminal Appeal has confirmed a judgment of the Gozo courts whereby Carmel Haber was found guilty of theft from a house in Gozo.

The first court had conditionally discharged Mr Haber for three years. He appealed from this judgment to the Court of Criminal Appeal presided over by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano.

The court heard submissions made by Mr Haber that he had not committed any theft when he had taken a chest of drawers, an armchair and three vases from the residence of Carmelo Gatt at Victoria, as he had been instructed to take the items by Mr Gatt himself.

Mr Haber further submitted that in any case, he had taken these items as payment for work he had carried out for Mr Gatt and the police ought to have charged him with the offence of exercise of a pretended right. The police had not done this.

Chief Justice Degaetano declared that, after examining the records of the case with great attention, he absolutely disagreed with Mr Haber's submissions.

The court declared that there was no contestation about the basic facts of the case. In January 1998, while Mr Gatt was in hospital, Mr Haber had entered Mr Gatt's home at 10.30 p.m. by climbing over onto the roof and then through Mr Gatt's yard. He had then taken the furniture valued at just over Lm1,500 from Mr Gatt's house.

When questioned by the police Mr Haber had stated that he had gone to visit Mr Gatt in hospital to remind him that Mr Gatt had promised to compensate him for works Mr Haber had carried out.

Mr Haber further stated that when he had told Mr Gatt that he was going to take the items from house, Mr Gatt had assented.

The court added that the prosecution had proven its case as required by law, for it had proven that Mr Haber had taken the items and had also proven Mr Gatt's lack of consent which was corroborated by the clandestine manner in which Mr Haber had entered Mr Gatt's property.

This last factor was a strong proof that Mr Haber had not obtained Mr Gatt's consent to the taking of the furniture.

Chief Justice Degaetano declared that Mr Haber's version was based upon a series of improbabilities.

Even if one were to argue that Mr Haber had in reality visited Mr Gatt in hospital and had obtained Mr Gatt's consent, all that this would prove, in the court's opinion, was that Mr Haber had tried to take advantage of Mr Gatt's confused state.

The court therefore dismissed Mr Haber's appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Gozo Courts.