Application for partial revocation of judgment

A constitutional application has been filed calling for the partial revocation of a judgment of the Magistrates' Court delivered last month.

Mark Attard filed his application against the Attorney General.

Mr Attard said he had been charged before the Magistrates' Court and accused of fraud, falsification, failure to give notice of alterations carried out to a vehicle and with being a relapser.

The court had acquitted him of the charges of fraud and of being a relapser but had found him guilty of altering a vehicle without informing the Commissioner of Police.

Mr Attard was given a suspended prison sentence of one year.

On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Attard had requested the variation to the judgment delivered against him in the sense that he requested the appellate court to confirm that part of the judgment which had acquitted him of the charges of fraud and of being a relapser, and the revocation of that part of the judgment which had found him guilty.

On March 2, the Court of Criminal Appeal had annulled the judgment of the Magistrates' Court and ordered that the case be heard again before the Magistrates' Court so that Mr Attard would have the benefit of a right of appeal.

Before the Magistrates' Court, Mr Attard submitted that the annulment of the judgment referred only to that part of the judgment in terms of which he had been found guilty as charged.

It did not make sense for a person acquitted of criminal charges to be given the right of appeal as a benefit.

But on September 4, the Magistrates Court found Mr Attard guilty of all the charges on which he had been previously acquitted.

Mr Attard submitted to the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction that his right to be judged only once in respect of a crime had been violated.

He claimed the decision of nullity of a judgment, delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, was a partial nullity.

As he had not appealed from all the original judgment of the Magistrates' Court, those sections that were unappealled from were not a final judgment. In conclusion he requested the court to annul those parts of the judgment of September 4 that had violated his rights.

Lawyer Joe Brincat signed the application.