A suspect must be informed clearly of possible charges being faced when under police interrogation and the prosecution must not charge the suspect on offences that are “completely extraneous to the investigation”.

This pronouncement was delivered by a Criminal Court of Appeal in the case of Godfrey Formosa, a 38-year old businessman from Naxxar, found guilty before a Magistrates’ Court last February of having obtained a VRT certificate illegally.

Police investigations had targetted the accused who allegedly paid a VRT service station official some €80 in order to certify his Ford Transit van as roadworthy without subjecting it to the test. The man was also charged over the unauthorised use of ‘Trial Run’ plates.

The accused was arraigned and, after refusing to be assisted by a lawyer, pleaded guilty to trading in influence, making use of certificates containing false declarations, making a false declaration to a public authority, forgery of a private writing and using a vehicle without a valid road licence, thereby landing a 3-year jail term and a €150 fine.

After due consultation with a lawyer, the accused filed an appeal arguing, first and foremost, that in the course of police interrogation the facts which the suspect had admitted to clearly did not constitute the offence of trading in influence.

On one occasion, Mr Formosa had directly handed over money to the VRT official, while on a second occasion he had acted as accomplice. This possibly amounted to bribery, but certainly not trading in influence which carried a heftier punishment.

Moreover, although the prosecution had informed the presiding magistrate that the accused had cooperated and therefore deserved a punishment tending towards the minimum, the minimal term of three years was ‘disproportionate’ and disruptive of the man’s work.

The court of appeal, presided over by Madame Justice Edwina Grima, observed that the first court, especially when the accused was not assisted by a lawyer, was bound to make sure that the charges cited by the prosecution were legally correct.

In this case, it was clear that the accused had been questioned on facts which did not amount to trading in influence, only to be charged later in court and admitting to this offence without understanding the true implication of his admission.

Upholding the appeal, the court declared itself "somewhat perplexed" by the fact that the investigating and prosecuting officer had charged the appellant over an offence which clearly had not resulted from the investigation.

The court declared the judgment null and void, thereby ordering the case to be heard afresh before the Magistrates’ Court.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti was counsel to the appellant.