Court in the act

I think we were all appalled at the disproportionate nature of the recent sentences imposed on that load of nefarious felons, who defrauded the VAT department of oodles of dosh.

Maybe some people mused: “Well hey, it’s one rule for the bigheads and another for the little people.” So the other day, when I was thumbing through a file of recent court judgments, it was rather nice to observe that it is not always thus.

And so, with my public service hat on, I, Sylvanus, would like to regale you with excerpts taken from the transcripts of just two recent cases, which possibly went before some of the most learned judges in our law courts.

Judgment in the case of Albert Biarelli versus Ħal Siġar local council:

“This court finds the defendant, A. Biarelli, unemployed tile-layer of ‘Our Nest’, Leon Trotsky Boulevard, in the village of Farrugiaville, guilty of the following serious crimes, in contempt of the Ħal Siġar Local Wardens Service and the laws of Malta.

On August 14, 2009 he did willfully and in total contempt of the laws of Malta, park his pickup truck carelessly and in such a way as to place the safety of others in danger. Namely, parking his pickup in Dom Street, Ħal Siġra, with the rear offside tyre encroaching to a depth of three centimetres onto the white line of the same parking slot.

The court accepts as factual the evidence of local warden Lisianne Demicoli Borg that, when she apprehended the accused and informed him that she was going to issue a citation accusing Mr Biarelli of this serious and life threatening offence, his only response was to hold up the middle finger of his right hand before getting back into said pickup. Ms Demicoli Borg thus affixed the citation to Mr Biarelli’s front right windscreen wiper before the accused drove off, repeating as he did so his former obscene gesture.

Mr Biarelli, you have been found extremely guilty of the heinous and savage crime of careless and unruly parking of a diesel-engined motor vehicle in the vicinity of Dom Street, Ħal Siġra. From the evidence we have heard, this court has no doubt whatsoever that your act was both premeditated and with scant – if any – regard for the laws of the land. I thus find you guilty on all of the charges leveled against you. Therefore I have no alternative but to hand down a custodial sentence. You will go to prison for five years with hard labour and will serve at least four-and-a-half years of that sentence. In addition, you will pay a fine of €12,000 or serve a further 18 months in prison with even harder labour.

I hope that this will serve as a lesson to you and also as a deterrent to anyone else contemplating any such gross violation of the laws of the land. Take him down.”

Justice indeed – and who can say that he didn’t ask for it – and indeed get his just desserts.

Then there is the case of my uncle David, a deeply respected businessman and an upright pillar of the community, whose reputation is as pure as the driven slush.

A few months back some overzealous young lawyers had the brass nerve to front up a government conspiracy to take my poor uncle to court for the largely harmless, white-collar crime of defrauding the government to the tune of €17,000,000 in unpaid income tax. Ridiculous, I hear you say – and that was indeed what anyone who knows my dear uncle did say, when they heard of the charge.

In the event, short of acquittal (which was frankly the only honourable outcome) the court handed my poor uncle a fine of €200 (suspended for six months) – and made him promise, on his honour, not to be a naughty boy again.

Justice, albeit rather harsh, was indubitably seen to be done.