Waylon Johnston
25 years jail in drugs trial
Imprisoned and fined €60,000 for conspiring to import ecstasy pills
Englishman Steve Marsden was yesterday jailed for 25 years and fined €60,000 after jurors found him guilty by eight votes to one of conspiring to import 50,000 ecstasy pills.
Mr Marsden, 48, had been found in possession of the pills which were hidden in the panels of his jeep when he arrived from Sicily on July 9, 2006, the night of the World Cup final.
In submissions on punishment, the head of the Prosecution Unit at the Attorney General's Office, lawyer Anthony Barbara told the court that the drugs would have been worth close to €500,000 if sold.
This, he added, was a case "where these visitors are trying to take advantage of Maltese hospitality".
Mr Marsden's intended to harm Maltese society and thus he did not deserve any mitigation of punishment given the severity of the crime, Dr Barbara said.
"There was no cooperation on his part and it took the police 10 hours to retrieve the pills. His actions reveal his intentions," he added.
Referring to the verdict, which was returned by the jurors after 11 hours of deliberation, Dr Barbara said that eight out of nine jurors did not believe Mr Marsden's testimony.
Defence lawyer Joseph Brincat asked the court to take into consideration all the facts including that the pills were not illegal in Malta at the time his client imported them.
Noting that his client had a clean police record, Dr Brincat said it was also his first time making a drug run and he was to receive only Lm5,000 for doing it. In addition, Mr Marsden had given the police two names of people who supplied the drugs to him and information about them.
After taking into consideration the submissions made, Mr Justice Galea Debono, who presided over the trial, jailed Mr Marsden for 25 years and fined him €60,000. He ordered that if the fine is not paid it will be converted into 18 months imprisonment.
The court further ordered that any time spent in preventative custody should be reduced from the sentence.
Dr Barbara was assisted by lawyers Nadine Sant and Jason Grima.
Police Inspectors Norbert Ciappara and Dennis Theuma had conducted the investigations that led to Mr Marsden's arrest and arraignment.
When originally arraigned in 2006, Mr Marsden had been charged with importing and trafficking 28 packets, containing the pills. Two months into the compilation of evidence, court expert Mario Mifsud, a pharmacist, had testified that the pills were not illegal. It resulted that the pills were not ecstasy but contained the chemical mCPP, which shares several pharmacological properties with MDMA (ecstasy) but the chemical was not illegal in Malta when he had arrived on the island.
The Attorney General had then dropped the charges of importation and trafficking of ecstasy and issued a bill of indictment accusing Mr Marsden of conspiring to deal in ecstasy.
Mr Marsden appealed but the Court of Criminal Appeal threw out the appeal and ruled that "a person may be found guilty of, say, conspiracy to import heroin into Malta even though the stuff he eventually brings into Malta turns out to be baking powder. It all depends on what was actually agreed upon between the conspirators and, more specifically, on the object of the conspiracy".
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
25 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Tony Cassar
Jan 9th 2009, 10:38
@Charles Sammut
A man cannot be TRIED twice for the same crime, but he can be presented with different charges for the same act.
An alleged murderer can be for example, tried for knifing a person to death and possessing a knife without the required permits.
Charles Sammut
Jan 9th 2009, 00:18
I am no legal expert but I think that once the initial charge of importing ecstacy pills fell through because the pills were not ecstacy (MDMA), this man could not be charged twice on the same alleged crime.
Therefore something else had to be dug up and 'thought crimes' fit the bill perfectly. When laws are worded in such a way that it makes them open to individual opinion, then we have the foundations of an opressive system. Remember that in Malta a person under arrest can be kept incomunicado for 48 hours. It is not so difficult to put words in his mouth during this period. One wrong word uttered unintentionaly or mistakenly can be enough to condemn you.
More such legislation is in the pipeline, this time relating to "racism & xenophobia". Technically, the media will not be able to publish news reports about certain people if such reports can possibly create an aversion towards such people. Even if it is the truth. The truth is no excuse.
The joys of democracy/democrazy.
rene joseph
Jan 8th 2009, 21:11
@Tony Cassar
welcome.
Olina Tretyak
Jan 8th 2009, 21:00
@Igalea
On what grounds you constitute the intentions of the person? Or you assume person guilty until proven innocent?
Me personally, I do believe that the man was told that he is bringing legal drugs illegally, he accepted Lm5000 reward for conspiracy and illegal importation with intention of illegal sales after. But where are proofs that he was assuming that he was dealing in illegal drugs? I just want to know, what kind of evidences proved so. Did he testify that he was told that he would be carrying ecstasy, illegal drugs which accidentally appeared to be with slightly different ingredients which made them legal drugs? If there were no evidences produced, how one can assume intention?
"Would you hide baking powder?" - if someone would import to Malta baking powder to be sold, without license to do so, without health department would issue certificate, without income taxes being paid from sales - which all means illegal importation of legal goods, then baking powder would be hidden.
"Do you take us all for fools Olina?" - No. Other people IQ is not of my concern.
lgalea
Jan 8th 2009, 19:11
Olina Tretyak
He had the intention of selling ecstasy if he had not been cheated by those who sold him the drugs. It's only incidental that they were not ecstasy. Would you hide baking powder? Do you take us all for fools Olina?
Tony Gatt
Do you usually bring baking powder with you when you go abroad? And they used to say that Maltese went to Sicily to bring chocolate during Labour! Now they seem to be going for much simpler cheaper things like baking powder! We've really moved back to the future!
kim zammit
Trying to excuse a crime kim? That's a crime itself.
Dave Alan Caruana, Steve Rogers
The intention to commit a crime was there as was there the start of the execution of the crime that was not completed due to circumstances beyond the control of the drug trafficker.
There was both the mens rea and the actus reus.
Charles Sammut
You will probably be charged with procuring.
Olina Tretyak
Jan 8th 2009, 18:29
I do understand that they would rightly find him guilty in conspiracy of illegal importing of legal drugs..but why accusation states "ecstasy pills" if the drugs, which he imported without declaration were not ecstasy?
Why accusation did not state "conspiracy in illegal importing huge amount of legal drugs with no any documents, lab certificates etc." ? Whose idea was to call pills in question ecstasy? Prosecution? Was it proved that accused was agreed to carry and sell exactly ecstasy, like accusation states?
How it will be proved that one, bringing baking powder, was conspiring to bring cocaine? Or it is taken for granted and no evidences required?
I believe that everyone must be punished for breaking the law, but not for fitting imagination of others.
Law was broken. Legal drugs were imported illegally, hidenly, with no documents, were supposed to be sold with no doctor prescription on the black market. Was not it enough to press charges?
Tony Gatt
Jan 8th 2009, 16:28
I had better be careful about bringing baking powder next time I fly into Malta!
kim zammit
Jan 8th 2009, 16:27
Considering the fact that this person aided the authorities by supplying the names of the actual supplier, the state should reward him with a reduced jail sentence. This, when taken into consideration that ecstasy or no ecstasy, the actual pills did NOT contain any illegal substance - at the time - should also lead to a reduced jail sentence. Incarcirating this man does put a stop to trafficking. He's just ONE fish in the net. The people who supplied this man, however, should be the ones accused of 'harming our children', and should be properly dealt with.
@ david meilak
Yes, these people HELP harm your children. But don't for one second think that anyone gives you these things for free. Your (hypothetically saying) children would be the ones responsible for harming themselves, as they themselves pay for these recreational drugs. Hello? These people are in it for the money. They are not going to give anyone an incentive at their own expense. And people who have lost their children to drugs, often have to put the blame on hard, addictive drugs. MDMA rarely causes death, and if so, due to overheating or dehydration.
Dave Alan Caruana
Jan 8th 2009, 15:52
This must be one of the weirdest (and harshest) sentences ever meted out by the Maltese courts. This, I guess, amounts to 'thought police', as no actual crime was committed, just the intention to commit one. I wonder how far this 'conspiracy' can be pushed, and to which cases it can apply, eg. 'conspiracy to murder' all the way down to 'conspiracy to overspeeding'. Are there different penalties depending what crime one would have believed himself to have committed / would have intended to commit ? Say, the intention to overspeed would be punished less than the intention to murder.
In the case of a conviction on having believed oneself to have committed a crime, I wonder how the element of reasonable doubt can be eliminated - in this case the hiding of the pills amounts to an admission of guilt - which implies had they been sitting in bags on the back seat they would have been returned to their owner and there would be no possibility of pressing the charges raised.
I think the court has delivered a clear cut judgement on a very murky subject, and opened a whole new chapter in Maltese law!
David Meilak
Jan 8th 2009, 14:49
@ Rene Joseph
My dear friend.............are you living in some kind of Wonderland? Are you aware that 13 year olds are into drugs these days? I suggest you wake up to the real world and get used to real facts of life. Besides this fact Mr. Rene Joseph, when you are a parent...your children may be 30 years old.......................they are still your children............
Steve Rogers
Jan 8th 2009, 14:47
@Tony Cassar
In order to do actus reus he has to be doing it. The pills were legal and I'm pretty sure he knew what they were when he bought them. Otherwise he is one dumb drugdealer. You can argue only mens reas is valid because he was trying to smuggle SOMETHING.
The point is you are giving a blank check to the AG to persecute as opposed to prosecute. Anyone can now be taken to court retroactively and this goes against the very morales of democracy.
Yes it will be challenged in a higher court of justice and eventually thrown out. When it does I hope Marsden sues the AGs office. I for one am against drugs and dealers but dictatorship and persecution are 2 pills I hope no innocent man will swallow.
Denis Catania
Jan 8th 2009, 14:37
If this was considered legal in Malta at he time of import.. Than this sentence is wrong. The government is the one that should be a shamed for not having laws agianst this drug in 2006. If the drug was illegal at the time than the sentence fits the crime.
lgalea
Jan 8th 2009, 13:26
Iris Azzopardi
He had all the intention of committing the crime of importing more than 50,000 ecstasy pills to sell to our youth.
It only resulted that they were not ecstasy because he was cheated, but he had the intention to destroy our youth.
So according to you, should he been set free?
Joe Vassallo
Conspiracy to import drugs is a crime itself. See also above comment.
Tony Cassar
Jan 8th 2009, 12:59
@ rene joseph
This is an abstract from the article you quoted: "Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono asked Mr Marsden why, if he believed that the drugs were legal, he had let officers work for 10 hours to dismantle the car to find the pills.
The accused replied that he hoped the pills would never be found because even if they were legal they would be confiscated."
If he knew they would be confisacted, then he must have also known that he was doing some sort of illegal activity anyway, ergo he was aware that he was conspiring, ergo the jurors were right to convict.
Thanks for referring me to this article. And thanks for strengthening my point.
Charles Sammut
Jan 8th 2009, 12:38
@ Iris Azzopardi
I would say mental turpitude. But I do share your view.
The impression one gets is that sometimes our courts adopt a shoot first ask questions later attitude. Laws are enacted which are open to interpretation and subject to personal opinion. Shouldn't laws be objective?
The term "ecstasy" is a generic term which refers to those drugs (not necessarily illegal) which bring about the illusion of well-being albeit with godawful side effects. To give another example, some tranquilisers or energy boosters can be over the counter or prescription. In the latter case, if you are caught with them without the prescription, you are breaking the law.
One other aspect which came up recently regarding drug trafficking is that if someone suggests to somebody where they can procure drugs, this is tantamount to trafficking. Does this apply to news reports which label certain areas as rife with drug pushers and prostitution? Does it also apply to prostitution? If I give a friend of mine the phone number of prostitute can I be charged with pimping?
A veritable Pandora's box.
wally vella-zarb
Jan 8th 2009, 12:17
Quite rightly, the jurors did not buy his story. Who, in his right senses, would reasonably expect to be paid €5,000 to import something that is legal and above board? Who, with nothing suspicious to hide would sit back and let the police continue searching for 10 hours? After all, the alleged danger of pilfering in Sicily had already been passed.
Thankfully, this process was heard by a Judge who has earned a reputation for zero-tolerance and no-nonsense sentencing. May all his colleagues follow his excellent example!
J Demicoli
Jan 8th 2009, 12:16
Good Clear message.
I just hope the time he serves would be the actual 12month x 24hour day year/s. Any seconds less than that would be to the detriment of our children and society at large.
Deo Catania
Jan 8th 2009, 11:56
Unbelievable how some ppl are defending this criminal. ANY drug dealer should be jailed. Article says it was his first drug run.....what do we know? could have been could have been not and anyway what if he wasn't caught this time around? he would have made other runs so yes his place is in jail. First ppl moan about the drug problem then an example is given and ppl moan because of the sentence given............
Iris Azzopardi
Jan 8th 2009, 11:35
I am rather perplexed by this judgement. It would seem that a person can now be convicted not for a material breach of the law, but for moral turpitude.
I think this case will not stop here. It will surely be appealed, possibly also going all the way to Strasbourg, not to mention further diplomatic intervention.
rene joseph
Jan 8th 2009, 11:11
@ Tony Cassar
please bother to read the other relevant articles too:
http://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090106/local/courier-hid-drugs-to-avoid-theft-in-sicily/
@ David Meilak
Oh come on! you make it sound like 6 year old are going to clubbing. Children do not take drugs, adults do.
Charles Micallef
Jan 8th 2009, 11:05
Well done to the Police who apprehended the culprit in the first instance and also congratulations goes to the AG and his team for securing this conviction.
One wonders how many more drug traffickers just like this one, are out there doing this run?
Perhaps more spot checks on similar vehicles will yield more surprises ………
Joe Vassallo
Jan 8th 2009, 10:44
I do not think it was an easy decision for the jurors.
I would have thought that if the pills were not illegal in Malta, then no crime was committed.
On the other hand, why did the guy hide them between the panels of the car? If he did so because he thought they were illegal, then he deserves every minute of the 25 years he will be spending in jail (well, much less than 25 years actually…).
This case may set a dangerous precedent – are we saying now that people can be imprisoned for an illegal activity they planned but did not carry out?
Tony Cassar
Jan 8th 2009, 10:39
@ rene joseph
Please bother to read the article from top to bottom, particularly the last paragraph.
The conspiracy charge make what he was carrying irrelevant. He could have been carrying haribo chewies for all that matter.
From the 8-1 verdict it is amply clear that the jurors were not convinced that the accused knew that the pills that he was carrying were legal in Malta. Thus he had accepted the commission in the full knowledge that he was carrying ecstasy, not fake ecstasy.
The two imperative principles in criminal law were thus present... He carried the pills (actus reus) and he was fully aware that he was commissioned to carry ecstasy (mens rea).
He conspired with other people to import ecstasy. Conspiracy is a punishable crime under our laws. Plain and simple.
David Meilak
Jan 8th 2009, 10:37
As I had already commented yesterday, anybody with an intention to harm our children deserves no less as to what this 'gentleman' was handed down by the court. I specifically do not care what the pills are called, were called, if they were illegal or not, all I know is that this man was happy to add to the miserable drug problem that we have in our country at a profit.
I can only speak for myself as a father of three, but I am quite sure that most parents would feel the same, especially parents that may have had the misfortune of losing a son or a daughter due to a drug problem.
rene joseph
Jan 8th 2009, 10:16
so, in 2006 he imports 50, 000 pills which at the time were legal.
they became illegal in 2007.
so far so good.
the embarrassed attorney changed the accusations from drug trafficking to 'conspiracy' ... heard it right, conspiracy.
he gets 25 years on accounts that: 'these visitors are trying to take advantage of Maltese hospitality'.