Next time you are pulled over to take a breathalyser test, think twice before saying "no." And if you are asked to go to the police station, be sure to demand that you first call your lawyer.

This issue was made amply clear in a judgment delivered by the criminal court of appeal in a case which revolved around this commonplace scenario.

Raymond Grech Marguerat, 61, driving his car along the Msida seafront early in the morning two summers ago when his driving allegedly caught the attention of traffic police. He was flagged to a halt.

Sensing a strong smell of alcohol, the officer insisted on taking a specimen sample for a breathalyser test.

Mr Marguerat refused and was asked to accompany the officer to the nearby police station, where he was warned that refusal amounted to a presumption of guilt. He once again refused to undergo the test, signed a paper to this effect and was allowed to leave the police station.

However, the incident soon returned to haunt him when criminal charges relating to a string of traffic offences were issued against him. The man was eventually acquitted of all charges save for that of having failed to take appropriate care by switching on his indicator. He was slapped with a €50 fine.

The Attorney General filed an appeal on the grounds that the man’s refusal to take the breathalyser test ought to have in itself led to a conviction.

Yet the court of appeal, presided over by Madame Justice Edwina Grima, observed that the accused had evidently not understood what was going on, nor had he grasped the full implication of his refusal. His ‘confused’ recollections of the incident when testifying in court further proved this.

The man had told the court that although the police had warned him of his right to refuse the breathalyser test, they had not warned him that by refusing he would be presumed to have been driving under the influence of drink beyond the legal limit. The court observed that when a driver is taken from the site of an accident to a police station and asked ‘to supply a breath specimen for analysis’, he must be given the right to consult with his trusted lawyer.

The police in such cases must be "doubly careful" when cautioning the driver, since a refusal on his part would constitute self-incrimination, the court said. This was especially so when, as in this case, "everything showed that the driver was not understanding what was being said to him by the police."

For this reason, the court rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the first court.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti was defence counsel.