The owner of a wine bar who had been given a suspended sentence for grievously injuring a neighbouring shopowner in a heated row over a small mound of drainage waste has been placed under probation on appeal.

Dione Lautier had faced criminal prosecution for involuntarily causing grievous bodily harm to Francis Tabone, the owner of a shop opposite his at a square in Victoria back in July 2106.

The whole episode had been sparked by a small pile of waste material left behind by Water Services employees who had been called to clear a blocked drain the day after festivities in honour of St George came to an end.

This waste from the street sewers was allegedly placed in a small mound in front of Mr Tabone’s shop, later ending up in front of the accused’s bar, prompting the latter to sweep the unwanted material back to its original spot.

Although conflicting versions emerged as to what happened next, what was certain was that the waste led to a heated argument between the two shopowners which “in a matter of seconds” escalated into a fist fight, attested by several eyewitnesses, including customers, who intervened to break up the scuffle.

Criminal proceedings were instituted against both parties in the fight, with Mr Tabone landing a reprimand and admonition after being found guilty of breaching the peace, while being cleared of slightly injuring his adversary.

The Magistrates’ Court had upheld the plea of legitimate self-defence raised by Mario Scerri, the accused’s lawyer, concluding that it had been Mr Lautier who had started the aggression “for no reason whatsoever”.

However, in the course of proceedings against Mr Lautier, this plea, together with that of provocation, was rejected by the court which declared him guilty and gave him an 18-month jail term suspended for three years and placed him under a three-year probation order.

An appeal was filed wherein the court, presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, annulled the judgment firstly, on the basis of a procedural defect since the first court had made reference to an article of law which had not been mentioned in the records of the case, whilst failing to indicate the article upon which guilt had been pinned.

As for the merits of the case, upon the basis of all evidence put forward and in the light of such conflicting versions, Mr Justice Grixti declared that “there was no other conclusion to be reached other than that the accused had reacted to an aggression by the defendant,” namely a punch on the face which the latter “had conveniently chosen not to mention”.

Indeed, medical evidence showed that Mr Tabone had suffered a cut on the eye, a fractured nose and several scratches on the arm, while Mr Lautier had ended up with wobbly front teeth as a result of a blunt trauma.

Mr Lautier had admitted he had punched his adversary, but only in retaliation to a punch to the teeth inflicted by the latter.

He insisted that he had acted in self-defence, an excuse which was turned down by the court of appeal since the aggression was not deemed to have been unjust, serious and inevitable in terms of law.

However, the plea of provocation was upheld since the first punch dealt was deemed to have been a provocative action which sparked an “instantaneous” and contemporaneous reaction.

His behaviour had been a “natural reaction” even if not a commendable one, the court observed.

Moreover, there was no medical evidence proving that Mr Tabone had suffered a permanent disability or disfigurement, the court pointed out.

In the light of all this, the court declared Mr Lautier guilty of grievous bodily harm but on the basis of the plea of provocation, the court changed the sentence to a two-year probation order, urging the probation officer to intervene to restore good relations between the two neighboring shop owners.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Angie Muscat and Jean Paul Grech were defence counsel to Mr Lautier.