A man convicted of drug trafficking appealed a five-year jail term after the presiding magistrate disregarded a plea bargaining agreement between the prosecution and the defence.

The accused wasted the court’s time and police resources and he should therefore benefit from no reduction- magistrate

Robert Spiteri, 42, from Valletta, was jailed and fined €3,000 after pleading guilty to possessing and trafficking heroin to sustain his drug addiction in October 2007.

In a note filed in the acts of the case on December 12, the prosecution and the defence informed the court that they had agreed on a three-year jail term, along with a fine.

They explained that Mr Spiteri had helped the police in their investigations, which had led to drug trafficking charges being brought against other people.

In her judgement, Magistrate Marseann Farrugia noted that Mr Spiteri had been caught red-handed and that he pleaded guilty only four years after his arraignment and long after the prosecution had rested its case.

She remarked that “it was obvious” the accused only admitted to the charges after having “painted himself in a tight corner” and in a bid to benefit from some reduction in punishment.

“The accused still wasted the court’s time and police resources and he should therefore benefit from no reduction. He admitted the charges two years after the prosecution rested its case,” the magistrate noted.

Magistrate Farrugia noted that Mr Spiteri had a number of offences listed in his criminal record, with no fewer than 53 convictions for various crimes, including drug-related offences and heroin trafficking.

The court said it would take into consideration the fact that the accused had helped the police in their investigations and identified other people in the drug scene. His information had helped the police seize 400 grammes of heroin and a man was expected to face trial by jury in the near future.

Yet, she noted, the accused had been trafficking drugs for weeks before being caught red-handed, and this and his voluminous criminal record “neutralised” the reduction in punishment he would have been entitled to by helping the police.

“The court would like to make it clear that drug trafficking is a very serious crime and it is not an excuse that this is done by a drug addict to finance his addition...

“Whoever has a drug addiction should seek help rather than resort to trafficking... possibly ruining other people’s lives,” Magistrate Farrugia said in her judgement.

She felt that the suggested punishment was “not appropriate” for the case.

Defence lawyer Josè Herrera disagreed, saying the punishment on which the prosecution and defence agreed “was more than reasonable”.

In the note of appeal he filed on behalf of Mr Spiteri, he referred to a judgement handed down by the Appeals Court in 2005 giving guidelines on plea bargaining, since the issue had not yet been covered by law. The law is expected to be changed to provide for plea bargaining.

Dr Herrera said it was “not prudent” of the court to surprise the accused and defence in this way by meting out a punishment that was far tougher than expected. He asked the Court of Criminal Appeal to amend the punishment.