Man with misspelt name wins back right of appeal

The legal saga revolving around the spelling of a man's name has come to an end with a decision in his favour handed down by the Constitutional Court.

Emanuel Gauci's appeal from a five-year jail term had been thrown out on procedural grounds because his name had been spelt with an extra "m" when the appeal was filed.

But yesterday, noting that it was astounded at the consequences unravelled by a simple "m", the court confirmed that Mr Gauci's right to a fair hearing had been breached.

The saga started when, in a judgment handed down last October, the Magistrates' Court jailed Mr Gauci for five years and fined him Lm3,000 for importing 2.2 kilogrammes of cocaine from Canada on and before April 23, 2001.

Mr Gauci appealed the judgment on two grounds. First, he claimed that the magistrate's judgment could not be executed because in the printed judgment, which he had obtained from the courts, he was referred to as "Emmanuel" when his name was "Emanuel", with one "m".

Secondly, the magistrate had reached a guilty verdict based on a wrong appreciation of the facts.

Mr Gauci had based his appeal - which he filed under "Emmanuel Gauci" - on the typed, official copy of the magistrate's judgment which was given to him when the judgment was handed down.

The Court of Appeal noted that two copies of the judgment, bearing the name "Emmanuel", were signed by both the court registrar and the magistrate.

However, the handwritten judgment, with the name "Emanuel", was also signed by the magistrate and, as he personally wrote it, it was to be deemed to be the original.

The Court of Appeal ruled that having filed the appeal under the name "Emmanuel", the appeal was to be declared null as the appellant's name was "Emanuel" with one "m".

Mr Gauci then filed a constitutional application, in the First Hall of the Civil Court, against the Attorney General claiming that the decision of the appeal court had been in breach of his rights.

This was because the Court of Appeal's decisions had a "draconian consequence" and led to the breach of his right to access a court which was an integral part of this right to fair hearing.

Apart from this, his right to be given a faithful copy of the magistrate' judgment had been breached because the one he was given contained the spelling mistake.

The First Hall declared that the decision of the Court of Appeal was in breach of his fundamental human rights and ordered that Mr Gauci's appeal be heard.

But the case did not stop there. The Attorney General appealed the First Hall's decision, in the Constitutional Court, claiming that Mr Gauci's rights had not been breached.

On evaluating the case, the Constitutional Court - presided by Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, Mr Justice Joseph Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph Filletti - confirmed the First Hall's judgment that there had been a breach of Mr Gauci's right to a fair hearing.

The court, however, revoked that part of the judgment in which it was declared that he had been denied his right to a copy of the Magistrates' Court judgment.

Now that the "m"-related issue had been cleared once and for all, Mr Gauci's appeal will be heard in the Court of Appeal and will be decided solely on the merits of the case.

Lawyers Joseph Giglio, George Abela and Robert Abela appeared for Mr Gauci.