A man’s conviction over a theft committed 13 years ago is to be re-examined after a court of appeal pointed out a formal error which brought about the nullity of the judgment delivered by the Magistrates’ Court.

Mark Zahra, 47, had been given a 13-month jail term after he had been found guilty of the aggravated theft of jewellery and voluntary damage to third party property, besides also being a relapser.

Following the judgment delivered in April 2014, both the Attorney General and the accused had filed an appeal, the former asking for a variation of punishment to better reflect the gravity of the theft, whereas the accused questioned the appreciation of evidence which had rested mainly on fingerprints allegedly linking him to the scene of crime.

However, when analysing the records of the case, the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, observed that the first court had failed to indicate, in the operative part of the judgment, the provision of law concerning the charge of voluntary damage to third party property, as well as the sections concerning the aggravating factor of relapsing.

This omission amounted to a defect of form which translated into the partial nullity of the judgment, the court declared, observing that such a formality was specifically intended to ensure that both the accused as well as other parties in the proceedings were fully aware of the facts upon which criminal liability was based and the relative articles of law.

Without entering into the arguments raised by either of the appellants, the court, on the basis of this formal error, annulled the judgment, declaring it would hear afresh the merits of the case.

Lawyer Edward Gatt was counsel to the accused.