Robbery victims win compensation for damages

The Court of Appeal has confirmed a judgement ordering an alleged thief to pay his victim €130,000 in damages.

Charles Saliba, a plumber from St Julians, had been acquitted of the crime by the Criminal Court but the victims, lawyer Joseph Zammit Tabona and his wife, had pleaded before a Civil Court that they recognised Mr Saliba as one of the thieves who had forced their way into their home on May 12, 1995.

The Civil Court had found in favour of the Zammit Tabonas and ordered Mr Saliba to pay them damages €130,441 (Lm55,998.50).

Mr Saliba appealed.

The Court of Appeal heard that the robbers- five or six masked men - had entered the Zammit Tabona's home through a roof door. Three of the men had gone into the bedroom, thrown the Zammit Tabonas onto the floor and demanded cash and jewellery. Mrs Zammit Tabona suffered a broken leg in the assault.

The thieves also ransacked the safe.

Dr Zammit Tabona told the court that he had recognised one of the thieves as being Charles Saliba whom he had known for many years as he worked as a plumber and electrician. He added that although he had heard the other thieves speaking between them, Mr Saliba had not spoken during the robbery.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had found that Dr Zammit Tabona's version of events was credible and that he had recognised Mr Saliba as being one of the participants in the robbery. Mr Saliba contested the conclusions of the first court, but the Court of Appeal said that it did not normally disturb the appreciation of the evidence made by the first court and only did so in the event that some valid and compelling reason was found to subsist.

The Court of Appeal noted that there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony given by Dr Zammit Tabona and his wife. However the memory of a person who had been subjected to a violent robbery could be affected by psychological reasons.

The Court of Appeal said that it saw no reason to overturn the decision of the first court, nor alter the quantum of damages, noting that the first court had substantially reduced the damages for medical expenses that had been sought by plaintiffs.