An Appeals Court has exonerated a mother of producing and selling Sicilian honey, falsely labelled as local produce, but confirmed the conviction of one of her sons, reducing his suspended jail term by two months.

The court found that there was no connection between 62-year-old Michelina Enriquez and a bottling operation found by inspectors in Gozo, so she was cleared of all the charges brought against her. 

The court heard that in January 2011 an inspection was carried out by the Rural Affairs Ministry at the home of one of Michelina Enriquez’s sons, Simon Kris.

The inspection followed complaints to the ministry that foreign honey was being sold as a local product.

During the inspection, empty honey jars labelled Miele di Eucalipto were found and it was established that the contents were being emptied into other jars labelled 'Malta Honey'.

Tests carried out established that the honey came from Sicily.

Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, presiding over the Court of Criminal Appeal, partially overturned a judgment by the Court of Magistrates in Gozo, which had found Jamie Charles Enriquez guilty of mislabelling Sicilian honey as originating from Malta.

Last May, the courts had already reduced a suspended sentence which had been imposed on Jamie Charles Enriquez’s brother, Simon Kris, for the same infraction.

Michelina Enriquez had been fined €700 for manufacturing honey which did not conform to regulations and mislabelling the product as “Malta Honey,” by the Appeals Court found no connection between the production and Ms Enriquez.

Jamie Charles Enriquez had been found guilty of using a false trademark, manufacturing substandard honey, and selling it under misleading packaging, and was handed a six-month jail term suspended for a year.

In his appeal, he argued that the samples had not been taken using the correct legal or accounting procedure and that none of the inspectors had advised them that they had a right to request a sample for independent testing.

They argued that there was no guarantee that the sample seen by the court expert had not been contaminated in any way and that this was compounded by the fact that it had been taken from an open bucket and not from one of the sealed containers which were on sale.

The Appeals Court upheld the arguments regarding the origin of the samples, holding that that the procedure used in extracting these samples as well as their subsequent analysis, was not in conformity with Food Safety Act.

Chief Justice Camilleri also noted that there was no evidence to prove that the officials from the Agriculture Department who took the samples were adequately qualified under the Food Safety Act.

However, this did not affect the conclusion reached by the first court, Chief Justice Camilleri said.

He, however, found that the charge of attaching a false commercial description to the produce had not been proven according to law. He therefore reduced the suspended jail term to four months.