One man’s long-drawn-out struggle for justice has finally come to an end after a 16-year long court saga involving three convictions and three appeals, the last delivering an acquittal.

Carmel, known as Charles Spiteri, a 57-year old from St Julian’s, had been the owner of a confectionery store and sub-contractor of plastering works back in 2002 when he ended up facing prosecution over drug trafficking charges.

It had all began one June afternoon when three police officers, acting on a tip-off, blocked Mr Spiteri’s path as he was driving his Toyota pickup van towards Birkirkara in the area known as tal-Balal.

A search of the vehicle had yielded a packet containing some 34.9 grams of a white powder, later certified as 30% pure cocaine, tucked in the space between the passenger seat and centre console. A tub of bicarbonate of soda was found in the driver’s door pocket. The driver was found in possession of Lm545 in cash.

All throughout the search, and even subsequently in court, Mr Spiteri could not explain the presence of the drug and other paraphernalia, insisting that he was no drug trafficker.

When testifying in court, the man had explained that although the Toyota was registered in his father’s name, it was used by a number of workers to whom he handed out plastering jobs and who regularly drove the van to ferry materials related to the works.

Yet on the basis of evidence put forward, a Magistrates’ Court in 2009 had declared the accused guilty and condemned him to a two-year effective jail term and an €880 fine.

Two months later, in July 2009, former Judge Joseph Galea Debono had annulled that judgment since the transcript of the testimony of one of the witnesses had not been inserted in the acts of the case.

The matter went back to the Magistrates’ Courts, presided over by a different magistrate who, once again, confirmed the conviction in 2014 and likewise confirmed the punishment handed down five years earlier.

The accused filed a second appeal which, once again, resulted in an annulment of the judgment delivered by the second magistrate who, instead of hearing the case afresh, had rested upon the conclusions reached by the first magistrate.

For a third time the case ended up before the Magistrates’ Courts, with a third magistrate earlier this year once again confirming the conviction, varying the punishment from a two-year jail term to a 15-month prison sentence and a €550 fine.

Persevering in his struggle for justice, the accused filed a third appeal. Last week, the court delivered judgment, clearing Mr Spiteri of all charges bringing to an end his 16-year ordeal.

The determining factor which proved crucial in reversing the reasoning of the court stemmed from the testimony of one witness, formerly judged as “not credible” and amounting to perjury.

When testifying before the Magistrates’ Court in October 2017, a male witness, one of the workers formerly sub-contracted by the accused, had confessed under oath that the drug and relative paraphernalia found in the Toyota 15 years before, had indeed belonged to him.

“At the time I was a cocaine user… Today I am married with kids… I never told him [the accused] it was mine. It’s not fair that my life is fine today whilst Charlie is going through hell.”

Whilst agreeing with the first court that the defence witnesses lacked consistency and credibility, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, presiding over the appeal, begged to differ in respect of this particular witness who had testified twice.

Indeed, there was no evidence linking the accused to the charges save for the fact that the drugs had been found inside his van at the time of the arrest, the Court observed.

“Nor could the court remain passive before such a clear admission by a witness,” Madam Justice Scerri Herrera remarked.

The magistrate had not believed a star witness, commenting that he had ample time to mend his ways and ordering his investigation for testifying falsely under oath.

Eliminating each of the defence’s witnesses, the Magistrates’ Court had conducted an exercise of ‘guilty by exclusion’ reaching the conclusion that since there was not one shred of evidence in favour of the accused, therefore, the prosecution had proved its case and the accused was guilty.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision since the evidence cast doubt upon the prosecution’s case and cleared the man of all charges, authorising him to withdraw the cash confiscated by the court.

The court further ordered the Police Commissioner to investigate the witness who had admitted that the drug belonged to him.

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Rene Darmanin were defence counsel.