Careless driver fined Lm30

A St Julian`s man has been fined Lm30 after an appeal court altered a Magistrates` Court`s judgment and found him guilty of driving carelessly and speeding in St Julian`s two years ago.

The Magistrates` Court originally cleared Anthony Chircop, 24, of driving carelessly and dangerously, speeding and driving when he was not dressed appropriately in St Julian`s on July 17, 2000.

He had been cleared of the charges after the Magistrates` Court ruled that once PC Walter Sheldon had misplaced the original notes on the incident the second set of notes compiled might have diverged from the original.

This created a doubt as to the nature of the notes` content and the doubt was to be applied to the defendant`s advantage, the magistrate had concluded.

The Attorney General appealed the judgment claiming that, in so doing, the Magistrates` Court had not given the prosecution an opportunity to prove its case.

Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono heard PC Sheldon and PC Godwin Abdilla say how, while on duty at St George`s Bay, they spotted a car drive by at a high speed. There were cars parked on both sides of the road and pedestrians were forced to move to the side to avoid the speeding car.

The car almost ran over PC Sheldon`s foot had he not removed it in time. The officers also said that the driver, whom they later identified as Chircop, was bare chested. A boy was sitting in the passenger`s seat.

The judge also heard Chircop explain that he was driving by at a low speed in order to find a parking place and could not go fast because there were many people walking in the road. He was wearing a T-shirt with three buttons. He said the police stopped him when he was reversing into a parking spot.

Chircop said that sitting in the front passenger seat was his father and not a boy, as the constables thought. The judge noted that Chircop`s version was corroborated by his father`s.

Mr Justice Galea Debono ruled that it was the Magistrates` Court`s duty to hear the prosecution`s evidence and that the reason it had given for the acquittal was incorrect. If anything, he said, Chircop should have been acquitted on conflicting evidence.

After evaluating the evidence, the judge noted that the constables` version was more plausible for otherwise they would have had no reason to stop Chircop. However its likelihood was not established.

For these reasons, the judge ruled that although it had not been proven that Chircop had been driving in a dangerous manner, he had driven carelessly. He had also been driving at a speed that was not suitable in an environment where there were many pedestrians and cars parked on both sides.