Judges confirm €130,000 damages in St Julians theft case
The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed a judgment ordering Charles Saliba to pay lawyer Joseph Zammit Tabona over €130,000 in damages after a robbery 14 years ago.
Dr Zammit Tabona and his wife had alleged that Mr Saliba was the brains behind a robbery at their home in St Julians on the night of May 12, 1995. They also alleged that Mr Saliba had participated in the robbery.
Mr Saliba had denied the allegations and insisted he had been acquitted of any criminal charges brought against him in connection with the crime.
In March 2008, the First Hall of the Civil Court had found in favour of the Zammit Tabonas and ordered Mr Saliba to pay them damages amounting to €130,441.42.
Mr Saliba resorted to the Court of Appeal composed of Mr Justice Albert J. Magri, Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia. On appeal, the court heard that masked robbers had entered the Zammit Tabonas’ home in the early hours of May 12, 1995 through a roof door. Three of them went into the bedroom and pushed the couple onto the floor. One of the intruders had broken Mrs Zammit Tabona’s leg and insisted she hand them her jewellery.
The thieves also ransacked the safe in the house.
Dr Zammit Tabona told the court 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 in the St Julians area. 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 deemed Dr Zammit Tabona’s version of events to be credible and noted that he had recognised Mr Saliba as being one of the participants in the robbery.
Mr Saliba contested the conclusions drawn by the first court. However, the Court of Appeal said 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 for psychological reasons.
The first court had chosen to believe the couples’ version of events and had concluded that Dr Zammit Tabona had indeed recognised Mr Saliba. The Court of Appeal said it saw no reason to overturn such a decision.
Mr Saliba had also appealed from the quantum of damages awarded by the first court. But the Court of Appeal confirmed the award of damages adding that the first court had substantially diminished the damages for medical expenses that had been sought by the couple.
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...
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 9th 2009, 03:18
@ c. camilleri
A possible explanation, in very simple terms, would be as follows. The Criminal Court grants innocence to the accused until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It appears that police investigations could not provide evidence that transcends "reasonable doubt". The Civil Court, on the other hand, only requires to be "convinced" that the plaintiff is genuine in their claim against the accused.
The fact that the accused was not proved guilty in the Criminal Court does not mean that they are innocent in the understanding of the Civil Court. The latter would therefore proceed independently of the former.
I think the crux here lies in the quality of the police evidence which does not seem to have been supported by forensic evidence. Had the quality of the evidence presented to the Criminal Court been high, it would have been easier to convince the Civil Court in favour of the accused in the case of a not guilty verdict, or conversely, against the accused in the case of a guilty verdict. To my mind it would be greatly unfortunate if the Law Courts of Malta do not have the privilege of forensic evidence.
c. camilleri
Oct 8th 2009, 16:32
Would someone explain this to me. Once Mr. Saliba has been acquitted of any criminal charges brought against him in connection with the crime, how come that he was order to pay 113,000 euros damages by the civil court when he is supposed not to have entered the house as per his acquittal by the criminal court. He is either found guilty of the crime and so calling for damages make sense, or is not found guilty as he did not enter the house and so no damages are called for. My mind boggles
C. Lia
Oct 8th 2009, 15:50
Well done to Dr. Zammit Tabona. It had to be a lawyer to show other robbery victims what had to be done. I bet many victims till yesterday didn't even realise they could fork thousands of euros out of alleged robbers'/thieves' pockets, I hope many other similar cases will follow for some justice to be done, since criminal courts are lenient then lets go to civil ones.
George Poitier
Oct 8th 2009, 14:44
Hope he didn't work for you and decides to get the money from you. There has been a spate of robberies in Sliema lately by a unknown person who some suspect works as an electrician, and is likely to be a foreigner. Breaks in and knows his way around the houses, very suspicious.
Joe Cordina
Oct 8th 2009, 12:20
If only all victims of crime where to follow the Zammit Tabona's footsteps. Well done
M. Mifsud
Oct 8th 2009, 11:50
Good decision... but who exactly will be paying the damages if the accused does not manage to? Logically, whoever has €130,441.42 to spare doesn't need to go around robbing others, does he? That is, if the money he has was not derived from illicit means.