The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday revoked a judgment by the Magistrates' Court acquitting a bus driver of charges of showing lack of respect to passengers and ordered that the case be heard again.
The accused, Joseph Deguara, had also been acquitted of using obscene and indecent language in public.
Mr Justice David Scicluna noted that the acquittal was decided by the Magistrates' Court on November 21, 2003. The Attorney General filed an appeal on January 26 this year.
The Court of Criminal Appeal was requested to revoke and annul the judgment and to either proceed to hear the evidence against Deguara or to remit the case to the Magistrates' Court for the case to be heard anew.
On his part Deguara submitted that the appeal was null and void as the courts had not observed the procedure established at law.
Mr Justice Scicluna noted that the Criminal Code provided that in criminal cases the prosecution had to inform the Magistrates' Court in writing, within four working days from the delivery of a judgment, of its intention of appealing. Following this notice, the Magistrates' Court had, within three working days, to send a copy of the judgment and of all the records of the case to the Attorney General's Office.
In this case the judgment was delivered on November 21 and the Commissioner of Police had submitted notice of appeal within three working days. The application of appeal was filed by the Attorney General on January 26 and in it the Attorney General declared that he had received the records of the case on January 21, namely two months after judgment was delivered.
Such delay was deplorable, the Court of Criminal Appeal said, but did not lead to the nullity of the appeal as submitted by Deguara for both the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General had filed their written pleadings within the time limits established at law and ought not to be penalised for the delays on the part of the Court Registrar.
When dealing with the prosecution's appeal, Mr Justice Scicluna noted that this was based on the fact that the Magistrates' Court had acquitted Deguara because the person making the complaint against the accused, a certain Bianca Grima, had failed to testify even though summoned to do so.
The Appeal Court noted that although Grima had been officially served with the summons to testify she had failed to appear before the Magistrates' Court. No action had been taken by the court of first instance and the court had proceeded to deliver judgment acquitting Deguara of all the charges against him.
Mr Justice Scicluna declared that while the Magistrates' Court was often placed in a difficult position when witnesses did not attend court sittings, the court could not deprive the prosecution of an indispensable witness and deliver judgment. This was a principle established by case law. The prosecution had not renounced to the production of Grima as a witness and the Magistrates' Court had therefore to ensure that Grima attended the next sitting, rather than deliver judgment.
In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the Attorney General's appeal, revoked the judgment of first instance and remitted the records back to the Magistrates' Court for the case to be heard anew.