The Chief Justice has highlighted a case he said was an example of how court proceedings should not be conducted.

An appeal from a decision by the Magistrates’ Court was filed by John Magro, a director of Magro Marketing Limited in Gozo, who was found guilty of failing to take safety precautions, which led to a worker, Mario Philip Galea, being injured in 1994. He was fined €3,000.

Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano said he could not understand how the Magistrates’ Court could have found Mr Magro guilty on hearsay evidence and simple conjectures, made by the court-appointed architect, of how the accident “probably” happened.

Furthermore, the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the evidence, which took eight lines when transcribed, of a man named Noel Cachia who only went to the alleged scene of the crime a month-and-a-half after the incident. He merely recounted what the victim had told him.

Testimony given about what someone else had said was considered hearsay, the Chief Justice noted.

Similarly, he pointed out that the court-appointed architect had visited the site of the incident three years after it happened.

The incident took place on August, 29, 1994, when Mr Galea was working on the roof of the Magro Brothers Factory in Gozo. All of a sudden, the roof caved in. Mr Galea spent two days in hospital as a result.

Mr Magro was summoned to appear a year later, on October 15, 1995, and the first hearing was set for February 15, 1996.

Although the prosecution had listed six witnesses, who could have easily been heard, during a sitting on July 3, 1996, against every good practice in cases such as these, two court experts were appointed to compile evidence, one a lawyer and the other an architect and civil engineer.

The experts should have been given clear instructions on what to do and also a time frame. However, none of this was done and, following their nomination, one could say the case went down a black hole, the Chief Justice said.

On January 13, 1999, the court also changed the original expert, a lawyer.

Subsequently, there was a lot of sittings during which practically nothing of value was done and it was only on November 22, 2006, 12 years after the incident, that the Magistrates’ Court allowed the court-appointed architect to submit his report. The findings of the other expert were presented a year later, on November, 28, 2007.

Mr Galea did not give evidence either to the architect or in court.

Although there was a sworn declaration by the victim to Mr Cachia, it was not confirmed on oath by the victim and could not be considered as evidence.

Mr Magro testified on June 25, 2008 but his evidence was not transcribed and the witness decided not to testify in front of the appeals court, which was his right.

No evidence was produced to prove that Mr Galea was in fact employed by Mr Magro.

Taking all the above into consideration, the Chief Justice acquitted Mr Magro.

In a second appeal, which was confirmed, regarding another accident involving the same company, Mr Magro, Ronald Galea and Michael Magro were fined €2,500 each.

Two managers, Victor Curmi and Christian Magro, were fined €1,000 each for an accident in which an employee was injured on June 5, 2007.

The employee, Kevin Theuma, was working with a machine known as the z-mixer, which mixes ingredients to make a paste. When the machine is switched off the mixing blades keep on turning for a few seconds. Mr Theuma had put his hands into the mixing bowl and injured his finger.

Although there were signs in English warning not to put one’s hands into the mixer, there was no graphic display.

The Criminal Court of Appeal confirmed that the men had in fact failed to assure that health and safety regulations were in place.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.