The case of a man who had been cleared of stealing paintings - including a Caravaggio - from a judge's house will go back to the Magistrates' Court after a judge ruled that a witness who had been deemed inadmissible is heard.
The magistrate presiding over the case against Ian Farrugia will be hearing the evidence of alleged accomplice Joseph Portelli.
Last year, Mr Farrugia, 34, of Sta Venera was cleared of stealing the paintings - including a Caravaggio - from Judge Giovanni Bonello's Valletta house on April 5, 2004.
This followed a ruling by the Magistrates' Court that, although his fingerprints were found on a plastic bag used to cover the stolen paintings, such circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to convict a man.
The Attorney General, represented by Senior Counsel to the Republic Stephen Tonna Lowell, appealed arguing that the first court's decision was null because it had not allowed the prosecution to summon an important witness.
Dr Tonna Lowell also argued that the procedure adopted by the first court did not conform to the law.
Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono noted that throughout the proceedings against Mr Farrugia the prosecution had repeatedly asked the court to hear Mr Portelli's testimony but the court declared him as inadmissible because he had pending criminal proceedings.
On June 21, 2006, the Attorney General presented the Magistrates' Court with a note requesting that the case be sent to trial according to law. The Attorney General asked the magistrate to hear the last witness of the prosecution before seeing whether the accused had any objections to his case being decided by the Magistrates' Court as a court of criminal judicature.
Meanwhile, Mr Portelli's case had been decided by the Magistrates' Court but there was a pending appeal.
In August 2006, the prosecution declared it had one last witness - Mr Portelli. But the first court ignored the part of the Attorney General's note about hearing Mr Portelli and asked Mr Farrugia whether he objected to his case being decided by the Magistrates' Court.
In October, the magistrate decreed that, since Mr Portelli was still inadmissible as a witness, the prosecution was declaring it had no more evidence.
When Mr Portelli's appeal was decided, the Police Commissioner filed a note requesting that Mr Portelli be heard but the magistrate turned down the request. The case was put off for judgment and Mr Farrugia was acquitted.
Mr Justice Galea Debono, sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal, noted that the Magistrates' Court made a serious mistake. The first court ought to have asked the prosecution whether it had further witnesses and, if a witness still had a pending case, the magistrate should have put off the case until the case (against the witness) was concluded.
Then, at that stage, the court - as a court of criminal inquiry - should have asked Mr Farrugia whether he objected to the case being decided by the Magistrates' Court and, if not, the court should have converted itself into a court of criminal judicature (that had the competence to hand down judgment) and proceed to pronounce sentence.
Then there was a second mistake, the judge noted. The magistrate could not declare that the prosecution had closed its case as that was something the prosecution should make. As a result, the prosecution had been hindered from summoning a relevant witness to its case.
Given these procedural errors of a substantial nature, the judge declared the first court's judgment null and void and sent the case back to the Magistrates' Court to proceed according to the Attorney General's note. This means the court will hear Mr Portelli's testimony before handing down judgment.