An Appeals Court has confirmed another court’s decision to sentence a 16-year-old boy to 10 days in jail for stealing €35, despite citing the punishment as “excessive” and of no help to his rehabilitation.

The court noted it had no choice because the appeal was not filed according to law.

Back in February 8 and 13 of 2013, the youth – who is now 19 - had nicked €10 and €25 from a person at the St Joseph Institute in Santa Venera. He was sentenced to 10 days in jail. The judgment was appealed.

The Appeals Court, presided by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, said that the punishment inflicted on the youth was excessive, especially in light of the fact that he had only been found guilty of simple theft and that he was only 16 years old at the time of the crime.

Given his vulnerability, a jail term would be of no help towards his rehabilitation, the court noted.

However, the filed appeal was shorn of any information regarding the facts of the case but, instead, detailed the difficulties and the familial and social background he was raised in.

“The court has examined the appeal in detail and nowhere were the facts listed which would have helped this court know the facts for which the appellant was accused… The court, therefore, has no choice but to declare the appeal null”.

Mr Justice Grixti expressed regret that he had to assist in such mistakes which led the accused to suffer, even though the youth had no input in the formulation of the appeal. 

Despite all this, the court still could not view the appeal favourably as it could not disturb a previous court’s discretion as long as the punishment was within the parametres of the law.

The first court had also taken in many considerations when settling on the adequate punishment, recapitulating all the episodes where the accused had been given various opportunities. It had then come to the conclusion that it had no other choice but to commit the accused to an effective prison sentence.

Mr Justice Grixti noted that he had accorded numerous deferrals so that the teen’s progress could be reported to him. Despite this, the court only heard negative things, including how the teen was kicked out of hostels he would be living in after being caught stealing or rummaging through the belongings of others.

The court also heard how he had broken his probation order. 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.