Republic vs Landry — Qualified Theft Exceeding €2,329 in Marsa

Cameroonian national pleads guilty to qualified theft of €2,329.37 from victim Sita Toure and is sentenced to 15 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years, with €9,900 compensation order.

Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature · Magistrate Dr. Nadine Sant Lia B.A; LL.M (Kent); LL.D, Barrister at Law (England & Wales) · 30 April 2026

In November 2023, Yoth Yannick Landry, a 34-year-old Cameroonian national with no fixed residence in Malta, allegedly stole cash exceeding €2,329.37 from Sita Toure at premises located at 34, Olaf Flats, Triq il-Farfett, Marsa. The theft was classified as qualified on three grounds: by value (exceeding the statutory threshold), by person, and by location — all aggravating factors under the Maltese Criminal Code, Chapter 9. At the hearing of 24 March 2026, Landry, represented by defence counsel, entered an unconditional guilty plea during his examination under Articles 390(1) and 392 of the Criminal Code. The court confirmed that the admission was made voluntarily, in the presence of his lawyer, and in full compliance with Article 392A(1). Finding no good reason to doubt the genuineness of the plea under Article 392A(3), the court declared the charges satisfactorily proven. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court weighed several factors. Landry admitted guilt at the earliest possible opportunity and had a clean criminal record. The prosecution proposed a two-year suspended sentence and a compensation order of €9,900, while the defence sought a lighter one-year suspended term. The court noted it was not bound by either proposal and independently assessed the sentencing principles drawn from Maltese case law and, by reference, the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 — balancing punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection, and reparation. The court held that while a custodial sentence was the most appropriate response, valid reasons existed to apply Article 28A of Chapter 9 and suspend it. Landry was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, suspended for 3 years. Crucially, the court also issued a compensation order requiring Landry to pay €9,900 to victim Sita Toure within 20 months, constituting an executive title enforceable under the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

Yoth Yannick Landry found guilty on his own admission of one count of qualified theft (by value, person, and location). Sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, suspended for 3 years under Article 28A of Chapter 9. Compensation order of €9,900 payable to victim Sita Toure within 20 months, constituting an enforceable executive title. No experts or periti were appointed, so no cost order under Article 533 was issued. Attorney General granted access to scanned acts and judgment within 6 working days.

• Under Maltese law, theft becomes 'qualified' — and attracts a heavier sentence — when aggravated by factors such as value exceeding the statutory threshold, the identity of the victim (by person), or the location of the offence (by lok), as set out in Articles 267–280 of the Criminal Code Ch. 9.
• An early and unconditional guilty plea is treated as a mitigating factor in Maltese sentencing practice: courts have discretion to reduce the sentence, and the earlier the admission, the greater the potential reduction — though defendants who contest charges must not be penalised for doing so.
• Article 28A of the Criminal Code allows Maltese courts to impose a custodial sentence but suspend its execution, meaning the convicted person serves no prison time unless they reoffend during the operational period — here set at 3 years.
• Maltese courts can issue a compensation order (ordni ta' kumpens) under Articles 15A and 532A of the Criminal Code, which has the force of an executive title enforceable under the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure — giving victims a direct civil enforcement mechanism without needing a separate lawsuit.
• When qualified theft is aggravated by person and location but not by violence or means, Article 280(1) of the Criminal Code prohibits imposing the minimum sentence, and Article 20 requires the sentence to include at least one-third of the difference between the minimum and maximum.

Criminal Code Chapter 9 — Articles 15A, 261(c)(d)(e), 267, 268(a), 269(g), 279(a), 280(1), 28A, 28B, 392, 392A, 532A, 533 — qualified theft, suspended sentence, compensation order

Report an error or outdated information