Bag snatcher jailed after opportunities for reform fail

A man who was convicted three years ago of having stolen two bags while their owners were swimming at Sliema had a six month jail term confirmed on appeal today, after a court declared that he had been given ample opportunities to reform.

Neil Andrew Vella had been convicted of stealing a bag belonging to Diana Schuler and another belonging to Emilie Langer.

On appeal, Mr Vella pleaded that the sentence of the first court was excessive, and that he had cooperated with the police at an early stage of proceedings. His counsel also argued that imprisonment would cost Mr Vella his job and everything he had achieved since.

The appeals court said that Mr Vella had been caught red handed. It noted that the punishment imposed by the Magistrates' court was close to the minimum. Furthermore, Mr Vella was dismissed by his employer as soon as these proceedings were started. The court said that Mr Vella had not listed what he had achieved since the original court sentence, and it resulted that while he was under arrest, he sought treatment at the Detox Centre, which meant he had a drug problem.

The court observed that Mr Vella had, on May 5, 2000, been found guilty of possession of heroin and cocaine and he was placed on probation for 18 months,

On April 12, 2006, he was again found guilty of possession of heroin and was given a six-month conditional discharge.

On November 23, 2008 he was convicted of possession of ecstasy and given another conditional discharge.

He had also been found guilty of theft and holding a person against its will, and had been condemned to a two-year jail term on March 15, 2005.

On June 12, 2007 he was convicted of theft and given a two-year conditional discharge.

The court said it was clear that Mr Vella had been given ample opportunities for reform but these had been useless.

Furthermore, it was unacceptable that people went to the beach worried that their bags could be stolen.

Therefore a prison term was appropriate and the decision of the first court was upheld.