Magistrate Francesco Depasquale. Photo: Matthew MirabelliA magistrate yesterday chastised the Attorney General and the police for denying the court the chance to hand down judgments expeditiously because of an “archaic” system.
Magistrate Francesco Depas-quale said that, in the case before him, judgment could have been handed down a year-and-half ago had the Attorney General and the police acted in a different manner.
Oswald Bennetti, 38, of St Paul’s Bay, was acquitted of breaking the arm of his estranged partner’s 12-year-old daughter and slightly injuring her mother.
Instead of the “inflexible” Attorney General giving his consent for the case to be decided by the Magistrates’ Court rather than going before a judge, thus speeding up the process, Magistrate Depasquale said he was reported to the Commission for the Administration of Justice because the Attorney General’s Office alleged that he was not adhering by the time limits set by law.
By law, the acts of the proceedings in a criminal case before a magistrate are sent to the Attorney General periodically so they can be continuously monitored.
If the Attorney General gives his consent and the accused agrees, a magistrate can decide on a case where the offence carries a punishment of between six months and 10 years jail. The Attorney General refused to give his consent in the case of Mr Bennetti. Thus, the court had to send the acts of the proceedings to the Attorney General within tight time limits set by law.
The case would have been decided long before
Sixteen months after Mr Bennetti was arraigned, the Attorney General gave his consent for the case to be decided by the Magistrates’ Court, Dr Depasquale noted. In handing down judgment, the magistrate commented: “If we were not regulated by an archaic system devised specifically to benefit the Attorney General and to impede the court from proceeding expeditiously and justly and if the Attorney General gave his consent straight away... the case would have been decided long before.”
He said the time limits imposed on the courts were detrimental to many cases, the proceedings of which would have been planned well in advance but were then unjustly put off because of last-minute requests by the Attorney General.
The case in question dates back to December 1, 2012. Mr Bennetti’s estranged partner, Christina Joyce, testified that she had informed the accused that she would be returning to Dublin. He was the father of her two-year-old daughter but she had another child, who was 12, from another man.
Mr Bennetti said he would move his things out of the flat but then asked to remain until she left.
She said they had a few drinks as the children slept and at one point Mr Bennetti went near the children and shouted “pig” in the girl’s ear. An altercation ensued and the accused twisted the 12-year-old’s arm, breaking it, the woman said.
He gave a different version and said that Ms Joyce had told him that her daughter suggested that they sell all his belongings and take off. Hurt at such words, he decided to go to bed and as he was walking past the children, the elder one hit him and Ms Joyce joined her.
Mr Bennetti said he suffered a broken tooth. As he raised an arm to defend himself, the 12-year-old hit him and, on impact, broke her arm.
The magistrate concluded he had no doubt that the injuries caused to the girl and her mother occurred when they attacked Mr Bennetti and said that procedurally, he could not take into consideration the testimony of the girl and her mother, He therefore acquitted him of all charges.