A heroin addict had his sentence reduced on appeal after the Court said there was insufficient proof that he had been trafficking drugs.

Duncan Scerri, 42 from Buġibba, had been charged with aggravated possession of heroin after a surveillance operation.

In April 2006, the police intervened just as Mr Scerri parted company with a person he had met outside his Buġibba home. They found three sachets on him, containing some 0.41 grams of a brownish substance, which was eventually found to be heroin of some 41.7% purity. The police also searched Mr Scerri’s residence and several items related to drug abuse as well as 37g of heroin and Lm350 in cash.

No drugs were found on the person he had been speaking to.

In court, Mr Scerri had testified that at the time of his arrest he was a heavy drug user resorting to some six daily doses of heroin, spaced out from morning till night, the last one just before going to bed. He also explained that at the time, he had been living on Lm25 a week of social benefits. After putting aside Lm100 to cover his monthly rent, he needed some Lm23 daily to feed his drug habit.

The Magistrates’ Court had found the accused guilty of aggravated drug possession, condemning him to a four-year jail term and a €3,000 fine, but the accused filed an appeal, arguing that he ought to have been convicted solely of simple possession.

The court of appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, observed that the police had found no drugs or cash on the person who had met the accused shortly before his arrest. This logically indicated that no trafficking had occurred on that particular occasion, while the hypothesis that the man had been preparing sachets of the drug for trafficking was not proved.

The circumstances of the case were more indicative of the fact that Mr Scerri was a heavy user who wanted to make sure he never ended up without his daily doses of the drug.

The court declared the accused guilty of simple drug possession and reduced the punishment from a four-year jail term and €3,000 fine to a fine of €1,000. However, the orders for the accused to make good court expert expenses and for the destruction of the drug involved, were not changed.

Lawyer Edward Gatt was defence counsel.