An Italian man who was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and was ordered to be repatriated after serving his sentence has had his jail time reduced, and repatriation order revoked on appeal.

Last March, 41-year-old Sicilian Carmelo Ciranna admitted to a number of charges related to a string of thefts.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi, on behalf of Ciranna, filed an appeal requesting that the courts to review the prison time given and the deportation order. Azzopardi argued that the two of the original charges are identical and thus one should be erased, and to erase another of the charges as it was an alternative to the other accusations related to theft. The applicant requested that the sentence be reviewed and that the repatriation order be revoked.

The appeal was presided over by Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi. The applicant argued that one cannot be found guilty twice on the same charge.

The applicant’s lawyer also argued that, while it is true that his client pleaded guilty to the charges, the first court should have not found him guilty of a charge which was there as an alternative to other accusations.

The applicant argued that the punishment imposed on him is not just, and argued that the judge, while he must take not of the impact of a crime on society and the reaction of society, is not there to satisfy the general public outcry. He argued that he penalty imposed by the first court is not balanced between the aspect of retribution and the aspect of reformation.  He also argued that the first court should have taken the applicant’s cooperation into consideration.

Regarding the deportation order, the judgement mentioned a European Directive, which states that every EU citizen has the right to move and live freely within the EU member states. They noted that this right could be restricted by member states in situations of public policy, public security or public health.

The judgement read that for such a repatriation order to be according to law, the first court would have been required to evaluate the principle of proportionality in light of the circumstances of the case, the nature of the crime, the time between the crimes etc. The first court also had to analyse and take family ties into consideration the close ties the applicant has with Malta. Repatriation, the Judge said, does not only affect the applicant, but also the family members.

The judgement read that the applicant, has three children, and said that there is no doubt that there would be a large impact on the children due to the repatriation of their father.

The judgement read that the applicant lived in Malta for a long time with his partner and his children, and noted that the applicant speaks Maltese well, so much so that the proceedings took place in Maltese without an interpreter.

“It must be emphasised that, while the applicant did make mistakes and committed crimes, it does not mean that he should be kicked out of Malta… as he considers Malta as his homeland due to his family.”

The judgement read that, in light of the definition of public security, the applicant was not a threat to public security.

The court reduced his prison sentence down to five years, and revoked the repatriation order.