A former notary facing the prospect of a term behind bars over misappropriation and fraud, has had his conviction quashed on appeal over a defect in the format of the judgment. However, appeal proceedings will continue on the merits of the case.

Pierre Falzon, the 58-year old former notary who had voluntarily renounced his warrant in 2015, had been condemned to a five-year effective jail term and ordered to refund more than €100,000 to a number of former clients, after being declared guilty in October 2018.

Dr Falzon had faced 37 charges revolving around misappropriation of funds which never made it to public coffers.

Investigations had kicked off after the police were inundated with reports and complaints by clients of the former notary, claiming that deeds he had drawn up had not been registered, since the relatives taxes had never been paid.

Twenty-seven cases of suspected misappropriation had eventually come to light, prompting the police to press charges.

Those proceedings had resulted in a lengthy judgment – some 62 pages of evidence, juridical references and reasoning – wherein the Magistrates’ Court had concluded that the prosecution had proved its case, thereby declaring the accused guilty of misappropriation and ordering him to refund €112,769 to his former clients.

Yet upon appeal, the accused’s lawyers contended that the judgment was defective since the first court had failed to expressly indicate the charges upon which it pinned its finding of guilt.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, acknowledged the in-depth and detailed analysis of the charges conducted by the first court when explaining which of those charges had been proved and those in respect of which the accused was to be acquitted.

However, in the final part of the judgment, the first court had failed to expressly indicate the charges upon which the accused was being found guilty, a failure which sufficed to vitiate the judgment.

Such a defect of form rendered the judgment null and made it obligatory for the Appeals Court to determine the merits of the case anew, declared Madam Justice Scerri Herrera, quoting the relative provision of the Criminal Code.

For this reason, the Court upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment and ordered the continuation of appeal proceedings on the merits of the case based on the grounds indicated in the appeal application.

Lawyers Michael Sciriha and Franco Galea were defence counsel.