A drug possession and counterfeit money case which took place in 1999 and was presented to court a year later, ended with a conviction today.

The judgement was delivered by Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera who in her sentence also explained the circumstances which contributed to the delay.

Francis Axiaq, 29 of San Lawrenz, Gozo, was accused of possession of heroin and the production of Maltese currency . He was condemned to six months imprisonment, but since he has reformed himself and is now sick, the court recommended that he be kept in hospital.

As for the court delays the court noted that:

The case took place on and before June 30, 1999 and the accused was arraigned on February 14, 2000. The court was presided by a different magistrate.

The case was appointed for May 15, 2000.

A mistake was made in the court acts and the case was reappointed to December 15, 2005.

Between 2005 and the delivery of the judgement, the court held 55 sittings with the case being authorised to decide on judgement on June 22, 2012.

The prosecution took up to February 15, 2007 to present all its evidence, taking 12 sittings. The defence took a further five sittings. During this period the court held 34 sittings.

The Magistrate said the court could not proceed without the accused presenting his defence.

During the compilation of evidence, the prosecution was always represented by the same official while the defence was represented by Dr Carmelo Galea and for a time, Dr Alfred Grech.

During these seven years, the prosecution failed to make an appearance in court 14 times, for various reasons, while the accused failed to appear six times for reasons which included illness and hospital care or because the Director of Prisons failed to provide an escort. In all such cases, the court could not make progress, the Magistrate said.

There were seven cases where the defence counsel was not present because he was either abroad, serving before other courts or was indisposed.

Six sittings were not held because the presiding Magistrate was occupied in the court in Malta, although in those cases the case was put off to a close date.

The court said it had made these observations so as to avoid comments that the delays in this case were caused by the court.