Three policemen and a bouncer who earlier this year were cleared of assaulting a French student because of a mistake in their charge sheets, were re-arraigned today and their legal counsel immediately filed submissions arguing that this is a case of double jeopardy.
Ramon Mifsud Grech, 41, from Birkirkara, Jean Paul Vella, 24, from St Julian's and Brian Tonna, 31, from Ħamrun, along with bouncer Jonathan Micallef, 29, from Birkirkara, were accused of assaulting French student Jean-Oliver Mesrine on October 25, 2009 in Paceville, holding him against his will and damaging his camera. The policemen were also charged with committing a crime they were in duty-bound to prevent.
Dropped from the original charges is the charge of injuring the student.
Significantly, the charge sheet now reads that the case took place at 3 a.m. and not 11 p.m.as originally stated.
Defence lawyers immediately called for the charges to be dropped, quoting the law and various judgements in their arguments that people could not be accused of the same crime twice
The prosecution argued that the change of time meant this was a different case.
The court will rule on the submissions in November.
French student Jean-Oliver Mesrine had testified before Magistrate Doreen Clarke that the uniformed policemen who beat him up had been drinking.
After the three were cleared in the original case, it was reported that the inspector responsible for the charge sheet error was being reviewed by the Police Board.
Justice Minister Chris Said had called for charge sheet mistakes to be investigated to see whether they were made intentionally or due to human error.
President George Abela also stepped in and called for those found to have made the mistake to bear responsibility for it.
According to police sources, the inspector in question has told colleagues the charge sheet mistake was genuine and should not blemish his 25 years of good service with the corps.
The police had immediately said that they would be filing fresh charges against the four accused. Sources in the corps argued this would not constitute double jeopardy, since the time difference would render it a completely new charge.