Marsden appealing judgment
The Briton who was yesterday imprisoned for 25 years and fined €60,000 is appealing the judgment arguing that no evidence which could support a conviction according to law had been presented.
Jurors yestereday found Steve Marsden, 48, guilty by eight votes to one of conspiring to import 50,000 ecstasy pills in the summer of 2006.
The pills were hidden in the panels of his Mitsubishi pajero and he was stopped by police as he was driving off the catamaran on July, 9, the night of the World Cup.
When originally arraigned in 2006, Mr Marsden had been charged with importing 28 packets, containing 50,000 ecstasy pills, with the Lacoste crocodile logo embossed on them. He had also been accused of trafficking in the drug.
However, two months into the compilation of evidence, court expert Mario Mifsud, a pharmacist, had testified that the pills were not illegal.
It turned out that the pills contain the chemical mCPP, which shares several pharmacological properties with MDMA (ecstasy) but was not illegal in Malta when the find was allegedly made.
The charges of importing and pushing drugs were subsequently dropped and the Attorney General issued a bill of indictment accusing Mr Marsden of conspiring to deal in ecstasy.
Mr Marsden appealed, arguing that since the drugs were not illegal the "charge as it stands is an invention of the Attorney General in his unfettered right to charge as he deems fit".
The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice David Scicluna and Mr Justice Joseph Micallef, 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".
The appeals court said that it was not up to it to decide whether "it was "real" ecstasy or "fake" ecstasy, adding that the Attorney General was clearly of the opinion that it was "real" and Mr Marsden disagreed. However, at this point it was up to a jury to decide.
12 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Denis Catania
Jan 9th 2009, 00:50
Just like this drug is not acceptable as it is illegal NOW. It was not illegal then. This drug was legal in 2006 due to the incompetence of the government. But the incompetence of the government should not result in making someone a scapegoat. Please note if this drug was illegal the sentence would have been justified in my opinion.
Piero Timpano
Jan 9th 2009, 00:21
Bearing in mind he was arrested coming INTO Malta with a LEGAL product, where is the aforementioned INTENT to sell as an illegal substance?? He wasnt arrested selling the product as ecstacy in Paceville.
J Abela
Jan 8th 2009, 23:34
I have never done drugs and am all in favour of harsh judgements against those who cause so much harm to our youngsters. I have seen many kids fall victim but this is not the point here.
I feel that this is a miscarriage of justice for the following reasons:
1. Marsden imported stuff which was not illegal at the time. How can one be sent to prison if the stuff is not illicit?
2. How could the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Marsden was under the pretext that he was importing ecstacy (and hence the conspiracy charge)? If I was Marsden I would have said that I knew the stuff was not xtc, thus my intention was never to import an illegal substance. So how can I be found guilty of conspiracy?
3. How can one be penalised for abusing the hospitality of the Maltese? Since when is that a crime?
If the law was deficient by making the pills not illegal, then tough!
p.piscitelli
Jan 8th 2009, 21:49
if they weren't illigal why did he hide them in the panel of his car?
I Abela
Jan 8th 2009, 21:13
Dear Mr. Sammut, don't try to deny the undenyable. I know how the system works. Also I would like to remind you (replying to your article) that lawyers and court judges don't make the law. The law is law, the judge is there to hand down a sentence if the accused IS convicted of a crime, the lawyer is there to twist the facts, and the pharmacist is there to analyse the chemical components of stuff. Also be informed that according to law, drugs are not illegal. It is the chemicals inside them which are illegal. Hence since the chemical mCPP was not illegal, this man should NOT have been sent to jail. Re your phrase "Malta cannot afford to be victimised on the basis of technicalities" That is not how the LAW works. We cannot send a man to die in jail because he did something MORALLY wrong. Was the chemical illegal? NO So....did he break the law? NO....So should he be in jail? NO
lgalea
Jan 8th 2009, 20:53
I Abela, Joseph Borg
He had the intent to sell ecstasy.
The fact that they were not because he was cheated does not enter into the equation.
He had the mens rea to traffic in drugs, he conspired to traffic drugs, and he had the actus reus because he gave execution to the act but was stopped by circumstances beyond his control.
Malvin Debono
Jan 8th 2009, 20:20
The case is not about whether the substance is legal or not but whether the accused conspired to import an illegal substance into the country. Whether he knew what he was importing or not is beside the point. One can be accused of attempted murder if one points a loaded pistol at someone but this fails to fire. This is the same case if it has been proved that he conspired and attempted to import what he thought was a controlled substance. In fact the legality of the drugs only came to light after the findings of the court expert, he had never protested this before.
Raymond Sammut
Jan 8th 2009, 18:54
@ I Abela
"court expert Mario Mifsud, a pharmacist" does not decide what is legal or illegal. He is not a lawyer or a court judge. As a pharmacist, his function is solely to report to the law court about the chemical contents of the pills.
To me it seems that there is an inaccuracy in The Times report concerning the court appointed pharmacist Mario Mifsud.
Raymond Sammut
Jan 8th 2009, 18:40
Here is a possible key to all this: "... the pills contain the chemical mCPP, which shares several pharmacological properties with MDMA (ecstasy) but was not illegal in Malta..."
Drug traffickers will have known about this loophole, and thus instructed the drug mule accordingly.
Malta cannot afford to be victimised on the basis of technicalities. What matters to a just outcome is the "intent". The intent was clearly there, hence a jury verdict of 8:1.
I Abela
Jan 8th 2009, 18:33
What I fail to understand is how could this man end up in jail for importing a substance which was not illegal? Should we send all medicine importers to jail? Should we arrest the man who is importing an energy drink named Cocaine? Should we also arrest the owner of a towing-service company named XTC? Quoting from this article "court expert Mario Mifsud, a pharmacist, had testified that the pills were not illegal." - "the Attorney General was clearly of the opinion that it was "real" ecstacy" So one might ask....Since when the Attorney General doubles up as a pharmacist? In which laboratory did the Attorney General personally carry out the tests to come to the conclusion that it was real ecstacy? And quoting again from the article "However, at this point it was up to a jury to decide" ...WHAT? Where is the LAW ???
Joseph Borg
Jan 8th 2009, 18:11
The pills were not illegal at that time. He had the intent to sell something LEGAL. What harm is there in trying to sell something that is LEGAL (apart from tax evasion)? Who decided that the pills Marsden had are to be labeled as ecstasy?
I know that selling these kind of recreational pills is not exactly ethical, and that harm to the society may be done, but in my opinion he did not do anything against the law.
Andre Grech
Jan 8th 2009, 17:51
The intent to sell them as ecstacy was there. I doubt it very much that he would have told his victims or pushers that what he had was a substitute and thus a discount would be applicable!!
All drug dealers and pushers should be given harsh sentences. Just like in this case, they should be named and shamed and sentenced.
What concerns me is that many Maltese drug dealers / pushers seem to get very light sentences or are simply conditionally discharged. They then get re-arrested, once, twice, etc...Just send them to jail...give them the neccessary rehabilitation and take it from there.
Our Justice system needs to be more harsh. Enforcement is lacking at times or seems to discriminate between locals and foreigners.