Updated - Adds reaction below by the Office of the Attorney General - A Swedish couple residing in Gozo whose apartment in Għajnsielem was burgled in 2013 are feeling vindicated after the Chief Justice overturned the decision by Magistrate Joe Mifsud not to send the two thieves to prison.
In a judgment a few days ago, outgoing Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri sentenced Anthony Fenech, of Victoria, and Rodney Joe Farrugia, of Għajnsielem, to an effective prison term for stealing from the home of Leif Ahlstrom and his wife, Ann-Marie Spaak.
Chief Justice Camilleri said he found it “strange” that the Magistrates’ Court had discarded statements given to the police by the two accused, in which they admitted their complicity, and that no reason had been given by the first court.
He ruled there was enough evidence of their complicity in the theft.
Magistrate Mifsud had ordered community work for the pair after finding them guilty of handling stolen goods. But Chief Justice Camilleri accepted the appeal submitted by the Attorney General and sent the two robbers to prison.
In Sweden it is unheard of for a magistrate to take up a case involving his neighbours
Speaking to The Sunday Times of Malta, Mr Ahlstrom said he felt relieved that after so much time had passed from the unwelcome intrusion into his home, justice had been done.
READ: Swedish couple ditch Gozo and its 'third world' justice system
“If it wasn’t for my perseverance and insistence with the Attorney General’s office and the police that the two burglars deserved to be put behind bars, nothing would have been done,” he said.
“I had to pester the authorities to make sure justice would be served despite the pressure, even from lawyers, not to insist. However, we have now managed to overturn the injustice of the first court.”
Mr Ahlstrom had harsh words for Magistrate Mifsud, saying that in Sweden, it was unheard for a magistrate not to recuse himself when one of the accused happened to be his neighbour.
When The Sunday Times of Malta pointed out that Dr Mifsud had said he did not know the accused lived in the same street, Mr Ahlstrom said this was not on.
“All he had to do was to look at the address of the accused in his file.”
During the appeal, Mr Ahlstrom presented the court with an SMS in which one of the accused, Mr Fenech, had boasted to his partner of knowing the magistrate presiding over the case, as he was doing some work in his apartment.
Magistrate Mifsud immediately denied this accusation and said he was only responsible for the sentence, as substantial parts of the proceedings had been overseen by a different magistrate.
Mr Fenech later admitted that although it was true that he had sent that SMS mentioning Magistrate Mifsud, he had only been bluffing.
He insisted that he did not know the magistrate and that he had invented the whole story to impress his partner.
REACTION BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Office of the Attorney General in a reaction referred to statements by one of the victims that, had it not been for his perseverance and insistence with the Office of the Attorney General and the Police that the two burglars deserved to be put behind bars nothing would have been done.
"In this regard, it must be made clear that the Office of the Attorney General decides whether to appeal or otherwise from decisions of the Court of Magistrates and of other courts on the basis of its own independent legal judgement,"the AG said.
"This applies in all cases, including this one. Hence, the innuendo that the office appeals (or presumably does not appeal) judgements depending on the “insistence” shown to this effect by interested parties is categorically refuted and goes against the need for the proper performance of the public functions of the Office."