A man convicted over his involvement in mugging a friend in a Paceville car park was cleared on appeal after the court concluded that the conviction had been based upon a series of “presumptions”.

Dylan McKay had been accused of participating in the aggravated theft, accompanied by the illegal arrest of the victim who had also suffered slight injuries, when somebody crept up behind him, grabbed him by the neck and made off with his Rolex watch and mobile phone.

The accused was declared guilty, landing a two-year jail term suspended for four years, besides being ordered to pay the victim €3,600, the value of the stolen Rolex and Samsung phone. He appealed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, observed that the first court had based its conclusions on a number of presumptions of fact based upon the suspicious behaviour of the accused on the night of the mugging, which had raised several questions, unanswered by the prosecution.

Testifying about his ordeal, the victim had explained how on that November evening in 2014 he had been out with some three friends, including Mr McKay, at a Paceville club when the accused had asked him to accompany him to fetch something from his car.

Halfway across the car park, as the accused walked ahead of his friend, the latter had been grabbed by the neck by an aggressor who crept up behind him, pushed him to the ground and made off with his watch and phone.

The victim had suspected Mr McKay’s involvement in the mugging since the accused had walked off, leaving him alone, returning immediately after the robbery and paying for a taxi to accompany them to the police station.

The victim’s testimony had been inconsistent, alleging at a later stage of the proceedings, that his friend had possibly spiked his drink on that fateful evening, before the violent robbery.

Nor had the victim been consistent in his description of the aggressor, supplying a description which did not tally with that of the accused.

It was further noted that the prosecution had not summoned any of the youths who had been in the company of the victim and the accused on that night of the aggression, nor had the stolen items been traced and the hand behind the mugging “remained unknown”.

The fact that shortly after the incident the victim had received a call on his old number, asking for the accused, could only raise a suspicion, falling short of a proven fact, especially since no call logs had been exhibited in court.

The victim “had been so uncertain as to who had been the persons involved in the mugging that it was very dangerous to give weight to what he said,” the court declared, adding that the evidence put forward “fell far short of the moral certainty required by law .

“Although the court could arrive at some conjectures or suppositions from the acts of the case, as the first court had arrived, certainly these can never lead to the conviction of a person at law, which establishes clear rules which must be scrupulously adhered to in a finding of guilt,” the court concluded, upholding the appeal and overturning the conviction.

Lawyer Roberto Montalto was defence counsel.