A 24-year-old man who was jailed for 10 months after being caught outside his home in breach of two bail curfews has had his prison sentence overturned on appeal.

Zion Mallia had admitted to breaching the conditions of two separate bail decrees after police found him travelling in a car in Rabat, Gozo, at around 11:30 pm on 6 November 2025.

Mallia is separately facing criminal proceedings after being charged in October 2025 with stealing a shotgun and attempting to sell it on social media.

In that case, prosecutors alleged that the owner of a Benelli shotgun reported the weapon stolen in November 2024 and later recognised it from photographs in an online for-sale post.

Mallia pleaded not guilty to charges including theft, property damage, possession of ammunition without a licence, handling stolen goods and breaching bail conditions.

He was granted bail in those proceedings against a €1,000 deposit and €10,000 personal guarantee, subject to a curfew and daily signing at the Rabat police station in Gozo.

The case began when police stopped a car in Rabat after noticing that one of its lights was defective.

Mallia was in the vehicle together with a woman. The police officer recognised the pair as people who sign the bail book at the Rabat police station and established that they were outside after hours, in breach of their bail conditions.

Both were arrested and arraigned the following day, with Mallia admitting to the charges at the earliest stage of proceedings.

The Gozo Magistrates' Court sentenced Mallia to 10 months in prison and ordered the confiscation of €1,000 from each of the deposits linked to his two bail decrees.

Mallia appealed the punishment handed down to him, arguing that the effective prison sentence was excessive in the circumstances.

As part of his appeal, he also alleged that the magistrate who sentenced him had made comments during the sitting which demonstrated bias against him and his family.

Mallia claimed the magistrate had referred to having dealt with members of his family during their previous work as a prosecutor and had allegedly suggested that the accused was leading the woman involved down the wrong path.

The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected this part of his argument, finding that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.

It noted that while Mallia and the woman supported the claims, other people who had been present during the proceedings did not recall the alleged comments. The court also observed that no formal record of the alleged comments had been made during the original sitting.

However, the appeals court agreed with Mallia that the 10-month prison sentence was excessive.

In reassessing the punishment, the court took into consideration Mallia's age, the fact that the breach appeared to have been an isolated incident and that it consisted of him being outside his residence after his curfew.

While stressing that bail conditions must be observed strictly and condemning Mallia's decision to breach two court orders, the appeals court said the mitigating circumstances did not warrant an effective prison sentence.

It consequently partially upheld the appeal, confirming Mallia's guilt but replacing the 10-month prison term with a €1,164.69 fine.

The confiscation of the two €1,000 bail deposits was also confirmed.

Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera presided over the appeals court.