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.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
m. borg
Oct 9th 2009, 07:50
What confuses me is, if Saliba was acquitted how can he be held responsible.
As things stand the Civil Court has branded the Criminal Court as an incompetent entity.
AS regards victim compensation this should be practiced more often but only against convicted criminals.
Peter Korsten
Oct 8th 2009, 14:23
For those who wonder how someone can be acquitted in the criminal court, but convicted in the civil court, it's actually very simple.
The fact that someone is acquitted does not mean he's innocent: it merely means that the evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to convict the defendant, in the opinion of a judge or a jury.
In civil court, the bar to get a conviction is lower. Whereas in criminal court you have to be absolutely certain that the defendant is guilty; in civil court, you have to be merely pretty certain.
The same happened with O.J. Simpson: he was found 'not guilty' in criminal court, but a civil court convicted him of murder.
Obviously, if someone is convicted in criminal court, this can be used in civil court to support a claim for damages.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 8th 2009, 06:05
There are three courts of law involved here, namely, the Criminal Court, the Civil Court, and the Court of Appeal. According to this report, none of them appear to have had forensic evidence presented to them. An aggravated home invasion and robbery would normally require the attendance of forensic technicians to collect and store forensic evidence from the scene of the crime.
Ramon Casha
Oct 8th 2009, 05:13
Although I agree with the principle that a criminal should be made to pay for their crimes as well as pay damages to the victims, how can a civil court penalise someone for an act for which they have already been acquitted by another court, without overturning the criminal court's verdict? As I understand it, an acquittal means the defendant was found not guilty. I thought that for this to happen, first one would have to appeal the criminal court's decision.
Marcel Dingli
Oct 8th 2009, 00:13
Lil Charles Saliba nafu bhala bniedem habrieki u onest u ma nistghax nifhem kif, u nissuggerixxi lil Charles ikellem avukat tal affari tieghu, la ma nstabx hati fil qorti kriminali jigi moghti din is sentenza fil qorti civili. Dan ma jaghmilx sens avolja ma jieniex avukat. Naf b`ta lanqas sentenza ohra fazulla. Issa anke l qrati spiccaw ??? Fejn ser naslu ?
N.Aquilina
Oct 7th 2009, 23:55
I cannot understand the logic behind this judgement. Obviously the Judges know more than has been provided in this report. Otherwise one cannot understand how a judge would endorse such a compensation request on "certain inconsistencies in the testimony given by" the victims, in spite of the alleged perpetrator having been acquitted by the Criminal Court. In criminal court one has to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt while in a civil case it differs.
Maybe the reporter here has been misleading, leaving out important points. A judge and especially in an appeals court is a Just Legal person, I would not expect such baseless conclusions.
My heart goes to Ms Bonello, she might have been sheltered from such realities in her childhood, or maybe her family was in some dire situation at the time. I will not judge as I do not know the whole truth.
Anthony Debono
Oct 7th 2009, 23:18
@Maria
Somehow your comments reminded me of Anna Maria Franzoni's case.
Prima facie, Marcel rightly commented on Mark Borg's comment.
"whom on the alleged night was sleeping in the quiet of his home, with his wife, me his daughter and my brother!"
Excuse me, but if you were asleep, how can you know what happened that night?
Maria-vianella Bartolo
Oct 7th 2009, 21:34
innocent until proven guilty but to every rule there's an exception INNOCENT even after proven guilty!!!!
Charles Saliba happens to be my father, whom on the alleged night was sleeping in the quiet of his home, with his wife, me his daughter and my brother!!!!!!!!
MISSIERI XEHED LI F'HAJJTU QATT MA SERAQ ONE CENT .... JEKK HAWN XI HADD LI JISTA JGHID LI MISSIERI QATT SERAQ JEW JAF XI HAGA FUQU JISTA JIKTEB!!!!
I wonder who the victims are in this case??????????
Marcel Dingli
Oct 7th 2009, 20:42
Good point Mark Borg.
joseph galea
Oct 7th 2009, 16:45
This is the way justice has to go.
Criminals on conviction have to pay for the damage they cause and the value of what they have stolen from the victims.
Moral damages should also be considered.
Prison and penalties do not retribute thos diectly involved.
Way to go
joe the plumber
Lina Caruana
Oct 7th 2009, 15:38
It is not often that a victim is compensated . After all no one wants to see anyone in prison . But to suffer theft +damages requires some sort of compensation . Luckily the evidence of the victim was acceppted in spite of the psychological trauma of being robbed byu someone you know. Theft has many repercussions and if the law should be practised in the spirit of the law this needs to be seen to be done . That is how people come to trust the Courts.
Mark Cushcieri
Oct 7th 2009, 15:28
He was masked and did not talk...I wonder how he recognized him..