A man jailed four years and fined €6,000 over an attempted theft from a Naxxar farmhouse had his punishment converted to a jail term of 18 months on appeal.

Joseph Zammit, 39, had been convicted by a magistrate's court over the attempted robbery which had taken place one July afternoon in 2012. The man had probably scaled a wall and jumped into the farmhouse yard where investigators later came across one of his slippers.

The culprit had then gained easy access into the property since the owner had left a key in a door which the police later found wide open. The farmhouse owner had testified how he had just been about to open the padlock to the front gate when he had caught site of a generator being lowered out of his property.

Following the accused's conviction, an appeal had been filed wherein it was argued that although the attempted robbery had been aggravated by value, the aggravations by means and place did not subsist.

The court of appeal, presided over by Madame Justice Edwina Grima, observed that the prosecution had failed to prove an act of ‘breaking’ by the accused. Nor had it been determined whether the man had actually scaled a wall to gain access. One of the photos exhibited by the prosecution had shown a ‘genuine’ key which had been left in the keyhole by the owner.

Neither was the offence aggravated by place since the targeted property did not appear to be used as a residence. Moreover, it was located on a busy street in a built-up area, rather than in some secluded country spot. The law provided an exhaustive list of places in relation to this aggravation and this particular property clearly did not qualify.

The accused, as a person previously convicted of theft, had also been found guilty by the first court of unjustified possession of tools used in break-ins. However, his earlier convictions had not been sufficiently proved by the prosecution, the court of appeal observed.

The criminal record sheet, sometimes bearing ‘imperfections’ could certainly not be considered as the best proof required by law. Only a judgment clearly spelling out the accused's previous conviction could serve as ‘essential proof.’ Nor had the accusation of relapsing been proved.

The court declared that the one-year ban on driving imposed by the first court was to run from the date of the appeal judgment rather than upon his release from jail. The court confirmed the payment of court expert expenses amounting to €623.43 by the accused and the three-year protection order in favour of the victim.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi was defence counsel.