Monday, 15th September 2008 - 14:54CET
A case of double jeopardy
Two men who were charged with conspiring to import and possession of cannabis, had the case against them dropped today after a court ruled that they had already been charged and sentenced for the crime in 2006.
Paul Attard, 42 from Żejtun and Michel Abou Haider, 43 from San Ġwann were found guilty of trying to frame up Joseph Muscat (not the leader of the MLP) by trying to place cannabis in his car, in payback for something that Mr Muscat had allegedly done to them.
The two men subsequently received a one year jail term suspended for two years. After this case had been decided upon by Magistrate Miriam Hayman in 2006, the two men were then charged with conspiring to import, possession of cannabis, committing a crime within 100 meters of an establishment frequented by minors and Mr Haidar alone was also charged with trafficking in the drug.
Magistrate Lawrence Quintano took into consideration the law known as ne bis in idem which translates literally from Latin as "not twice for the same", meaning that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same action. It is a legal concept originating in Roman Civil Law, but essentially as the double jeopardy clauses found in common law jurisdictions.
Magistrate Quintano said that although the charges were not the same in the two cases instituted against them, the facts were and therefore ne bis in idem could be applied.
RSS
Comments
Please note that the role of the prosecutor is to ensure that all evidence whether in favour or against the accused is brought forward in front of the Court. Hiding evidence from the Court is tantamount to an offence. The role of the lawyer is to ensure that the prosecution does not abuse its power and to see that the evidence collected are within the boundaries of the law. This is what I meant by justice!! If you have difficulties in understanding justice and law, I suggest that you spend some days in our law courts. This would help you distinguish the roles of the prosecution and of the lawyer. As for the law (the written law), it dictates procedures to be followed and we must thank the legislator for this as otherwise the two persons concerned would have been sentenced twice for the same offence. An (in)justice would have been created in this case. As for bread and butter, I will refrain from commenting and enter into an argument. If you would like a longer explanation, I will be more than happy to do so...once the Times increases the limit of words!!
Quote: they were already charged before and sentenced whether they were found guilty or not. Unquote.
It's a bit much to sentence one who has been found not guilty!
Quote: Lawyers are there to ensure that justice is done. Unquote.
I don't believe that for a moment; the prosecutor is there to ensure that the accused is convicted, the defence to see that he is not. Please let's not confuse law with justice; they rarely coincide.
If you are indeed a lawyer language is your bread and butter, and I would have expected a far more articulate comment from you!
I have my facts very right Mr. Cutajar, I can speak from personal experience regarding cannabis for medical use.
It would be a lot better if people did not swallow all that they read in the corporate controlled media and do research alternative views. Many of the so-called medicines made by big Pharma have very dangerous side effects which the patients are never told about and which appear as another disease further down the road and which of course big Pharma has another pill for.
How can an natural God-given herb that has been safely and effectively used for five thousand years suddenly become so demonic.
@ Joseph Zammit - this is not a case of a suspended sentence. This case of ne bis in idem, means that they were already charged before and sentenced whether they were found guilty or not. In this case, it was the mistake of the prosecution which did not take into consideration that this is one case and related to each other. They wanted to charge them with two separate offences which are related to each other. Your comments on lawyers does not make sense. Lawyers are there to ensure that justice is done. Whether a person is freed or sentenced is a prerogative of the Court in relation to the facts presented in the case. Your comments depict the profession as being mongers to see that all criminals are out roaming in our streets. Please refrain from commenting in such a manner, as it only shows that you do not know what you are talking about...yes (to your mind warping question)...I am a lawyer and I also was a prosecutor, so I know what I am talking about!!!
The use of it is far less dangerous than alcohol, it is not addictive and it does not lead to hard drug use.
Medically, it has been used to safely treat many ailments with good results for the past five thousand years by many cultures.
it truely is a god given herb to help mankind.
the real probem is the big pharma companies cannot patent cannabis and lose out of big profits if it is used instead of their very dangerous and at times ineffective, expensive concoctions.
big Pharma multinational corporations have deep pockets and governments do their bidding in vilifing cannabis and imprisoning people connected with it.
If we really want to reduce this drug trafficking problem we should ask for harsher sentences. In today's world it cost you much more for committing a traffic contravention than committing a drug related offence.
Well done to the lawyers who manage to keep the drug pushers to run free among us and our young ones!!!