Man remanded in custody over theft charges

A 40-year-old father of three from Floriana has been remanded in custody after he appeared in court today, charged in connection with the burglary of an elderly couple’s home in 2012.

Before Magistrate Francesco Depasquale this afternoon, police inspector Carlos Cordina accused Matthew Piscopo of having committed theft aggravated by means, value and the person robbed when he broke into the couple’s home in Valletta, at some point on 18th November 2012. Piscopo was also charged with receiving stolen goods and relapsing.

The victims, aged 76 and 77 were “still feeling the effects of the trauma they had suffered, to this day,” said the inspector. Over €2000 worth of items had been stolen.

Piscopo pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Inspector Cordina exhibited the accused’s criminal record, telling the court that the accused had previous convictions for theft. He had consistently denied having any part in this burglary, added the inspector however.

He opposed the defence’s request for bail as the victims were yet to testify.

But defence lawyer Jason Grima pointed out that the theft had taken place three years ago. “If there was a risk of the accused approaching the victims he would have done so by now. He was interrogated months ago and could have easily approached the witnesses since then, but had not.”

The accused, who was unemployed due to a medical condition, had cooperated with the police, said the lawyer. In fact, after being granted police bail, Piscopo had always kept his appointments with the police. Furthermore, he had voluntarily given fingerprints to the police.

The defence rebutted the inspector’s assertion that the accused had not cooperated with police. Just because he had answered the police’s questions by saying that he did not know what they were talking about, did not constitute non-cooperation with the police, he said.

The lawyer asked how, if the accused was innocent, could he have been expected to admit to a crime which he had not committed. He described this reasoning as “a legal nonsense.”

The court opted for prudence however and, in view of the fact that the couple had not yet testified, ordered the man be remanded in custody.