The police were criticised by a magistrate today for having only recently pressed charges against a man over a crime which was investigated in 2011.

John Paul Charles Woods was charged with having fraudulently obtained scuba diving gear worth under €5,000 in 2011, misappropriation and recidivism.

But the case file was misplaced when the prosecuting police inspector retired from the police force and was only rediscovered this year, at which point Mr Woods was charged.

A probation officer informed the court that Mr Woods was making progress in changing his ways and had since 'turned a new leaf'.

Magistrate Joe Mifsud was not impressed by the delay in arraigning the man, saying the court could not fail to comment on what he called “serious problems in the police force”.

"We cannot have situations where the police investigate a case in September 2011 and the accused is charged in September 2017.” The court described this as an injustice to the accused, his family and the victims of the crime.  

The court described this as an injustice to the accused, his family and the victims of the crime.  

It is not acceptable for a person to retire from the force and not give a handover of all his pending cases and investigations- Magistrate

“It is not acceptable for a person to retire from the force and not give a handover of all his pending cases and investigations... the investigation file,
instead of being passed on to another investigator was left on a shelf somewhere until someone noticed it years later and decided to arraign to avoid the case being time-barred.”

Although the passage of time did not reduce the accused's criminal responsibility or the fact that he had to repay his debt to society, the court observed that it could benefit the accused if he showed that over that time he had shown a commitment to reforming himself, quoting the 2002 judgement by the
Court of Criminal Appeal in Police vs Nicola Farrugia et.

Also referring to legal authors, the court dismissed the “simplistic idea” that a person who had already been given a non-custodial sentence could not be placed on probation but had to be jailed instead.  

“It all depends on the particular circumstances of the case, in particular the prospect of success of that particular measure in reforming the guilty person.”
Magistrate Mifsud also referred to speeches by President Coleiro Preca and Bishop Mario Grech on the reintegration of convicts into society, which also highlighted the difficulties encountered by persons undergoing criminal proceedings, who often end up back in prison.

The law gives the courts a lot of leeway in sentencing because there are many factors that vary from case to case, said the magistrate. The accused had admitted in the early stages of proceedings, the passage of time due to police’s mishandling of the case and the fact that the accused had successfully steered clear of drugs for the past four years, as testified by his probation
officer.

Woods was sentenced to probation for three years and placed on a three-year treatment order.