'Evidence can be useful even after guilty plea'

A man, who appealed a suspended jail term handed down for assaulting a police officer, has been fined Lm100 when the appeal court declared his appeal was frivolous.

The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled this was a case where a police sergeant had been verbally and physically assaulted because he was carrying out his duty and this deserved an effective jail term.

Coronato Portelli, 45, of Nadur had admitted to threatening and slightly injuring PS Emanuel Cilia in Nadur on October 12, 2006, at about 4.30 p.m.

He also admitted to assaulting PS Cilia and another five officers and damaging the door of PS Cilia's home at about 6 p.m. that same day.

The Magistrates' Court had given Mr Portelli a two-year jail term suspended for four years. But Mr Portelli appealed requesting the court to hand down a punishment that was "less harsh".

He argued that, in its judgment the first court had wrongly noted he had been previously convicted of crimes against the police and had failed to take note of the fact that he had filed an early guilty plea.

Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, presiding over the Court of Criminal Appeal, started by noting that - as he had pointed out in several other cases - it would be useful if the first court had heard some witnesses testify on the circumstances of the case even after a guilty plea was filed.

Had the first court at least heard the evidence of PS Cilia, the court would have realised that this case was one that deserved an effective jail term.

This was a case where a police sergeant was verbally and physically assaulted because he was carrying out his duty outside the Nadur football club at about 4.30 p.m. on the day of the incident. Mr Portelli was not satisfied with this because, later on, at about 6 p.m., he turned up outside the sergeant's house where he continued insulting him, damaged his property and terrified his wife.

This was a classical case where, irrespective of the criminal record, an effective jail term should have been applied. It was unacceptable that a police officer was subjected to such behaviour just because he was carrying out his duty.

The Chief Justice ruled that, although the first court was mistaken when it ruled that Mr Portelli had been found guilty of offences against the police, this did not change anything from the serious nature of the case that deserved an effective jail term. For this reason he turned down Mr Portelli's appeal, declared it frivolous and fined him Lm100.