A man has had his appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal after attempting to reduce a three-year prison sentence for a series of thefts at UNO night club at Ta' Qali. Judge Neville Camilleri upheld the original judgment in full, ruling that the punishment was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

The case stems from thefts committed in July and August 2026. On 29 August 2026, between 2am and 3:30am, Magdy Islam Rashad and two co-accused stole gold jewellery and other items from three individuals. These thefts were aggravated by violence, with one involving stolen property valued at over €2,329. Rashad and a co-accused were also charged with another gold theft at the same night club on 4 July 2026. Additionally, Rashad faced charges for breaching two sets of bail conditions imposed in October 2024 and May 2025.

On 3 September 2026, Rashad pleaded guilty to all charges before the Court of Magistrates. His case was separated from his co-accused, and he was sentenced to three years in prison with his bail revoked. The lower court ordered the confiscation of €9,000 for bail breaches, comprising €5,000 from the October 2024 order and €4,000 from the May 2025 order. He was also ordered to pay €2,384-his share of the stolen property's value-to the victims within six months.

Rashad appealed the sentence without contesting his conviction, arguing that the punishment was excessively harsh. His defence highlighted his early guilty plea, clean criminal record, and cited lighter sentences given to others for similar offences. He also contested the €9,000 confiscation as excessive.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, reiterating that appellate courts only intervene if a sentence is legally incorrect or manifestly excessive. Judge Camilleri emphasized that an early admission of guilt does not automatically entitle an accused person to a lighter sentence.

Given the gravity of the offences and the breaches of two bail orders (which carried thousands in deposits and personal guarantees), the court found no justification to alter the sentence or the €9,000 confiscation. Concluding that each case must be assessed on its own facts and that the punishment fell well within legal limits, the court confirmed the original three-year prison term, the financial confiscation, and the victim compensation order.