Two men who claimed to own stolen items recovered by the police, have lost a case where they sued the police after the items were returned to the person from whom they were seized.

David Anastasi and Joseph Stivala filed their case against the police on February 2, 1990.

Mr Stivala said that his house was burgled on December 31, 1988. Among the items which were stolen were two silver candlesticks, a silver tea set and other antique silver items.

Mr Anastasi's house was broken into on May 6, 1989. The stolen items included an antique silver tea set.

In mid-May 1989 the two men were asked to call at police headquarters to view items recovered during a search in a property belonging to Dominic Micallef.

The two said they positively identified their stolen items. However the police refused to return them since they said they needed to arraign someone in court.

Then, without notice and explanation, the police returned the items to Mr Micallef.

Mr Micallef eventually sold them to an Italian.

The two men held the police responsible for their losses and demanded payment of compensation.

During the proceedings the court heard that Mr Micallef had accounted for the ownership of these and other items seized by the police from his property. He had produced receipts and in many cases, video footage of the items seen during family events at his house.

After hearing the evidence, the court said that once the police and the inquiring Magistrate had decided that no one should be prosecuted, and once Mr Micallef had explained how he acquired the items, the police had a duty to follow the instructions of the inquiring Magistrate and return the items to Mr Micallef.

The Court said that Mr Anastasi and Mr Stivala had therefore knocked on the wrong door when they sought compensation from the police, who had had no choice but to return the items to Mr Micallef.