A suspect loan shark who had allegedly almost driven his victim to commit suicide over excessive loan repayments was acquitted after the victim’s cross-examination did not materialise. 

The case dated back to December 24, 2017 when Gilbert Galea, 28, was arraigned alongside his father Anthony, 57, pleading not guilty to loaning money at excessive rates of interest, threatening their victim and causing him to fear violence, almost driving him to commit suicide.

A loan of €7,800 for the refurbishment of a bakery had ended up with the man facing demands for repayment of the loan at excessive interest rates, totaling some €150,000.

The borrower was driven to such despair that he almost committed suicide and was only saved through police intervention in the nick of time. 

The two money lenders were arraigned jointly with both pleading not guilty. 

Subsequently, proceedings against father and son went separate ways, resulting in an acquittal in respect of the elder man in March 2019. 

On that occasion, the prosecution’s case had faltered on account of the fact that the son’s statement, released under interrogation, was declared inadmissible in evidence against the father since proceedings against the son were still ongoing. 

One year five months later, the court, presided over by magistrate Joseph Mifsud, delivered judgment in respect of the son. 

The court upheld a request, filed by the accused’s lawyers in January 2020, to remove the victim’s testimony from the records of the case on account of failure to conclude the victim’s cross-examination. 

Although the prosecution had wrapped up their evidence in May 2018, repeated calls by the defence lawyers for the alleged victim to step forward to face cross-examination, were never met. 

The man’s lawyers promised, in a December 2018 sitting, that he would be there for the next sitting.

But five sittings later, in January 2020, the alleged victim had made no appearance. Nor had there been any arrangements for the cross-examination to be conducted through audio-visual means. 

Cross-examination of a witness was one of the most essential tools in the hands of the defence, enabling it to test the witness and verify whether he is telling the truth, the court observed. 

The non-appearance of the alleged victim had effectively denied the defence this tool, said the court, ordering the removal of the victim’s testimony, untested under cross-examination. 

Allowing such testimony to stand would amount to a breach of the accused’s right to a fair hearing, went on Mifsud. 

As for the rest of the evidence put forward, it failed to sufficiently prove the charges.

Other witnesses could only provide second-hand accounts, matching signatures on receipts could only prove some loan between the accused and the alleged victim, without shedding light on any excessive interest payments.

Nor could the court exclude that text messages exchanged had been staged by the alleged victim who had a gambling problem.

In the light of such circumstances, the court pronounced an acquittal and revoked the freezing order on the accused’s assets. 

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Alfred Abela were defence counsel.