Court finds admission to be legally invalid

The Court of Criminal Appeal has revoked a suspended sentence handed to a teenager and ordered that his case be re-heard by the Magistrates' Court after it ruled that the accused entered a conditional admission, which was not legally valid. 

Juliano Dine, 19, had been handed a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to slightly injuring a man accused of attempting to murder him and his father. The incident took place during an argument in Xagħra on May 21.

Dine appealed the judgment, claiming that his guilty plea was legally invalid and therefore the judgement handed out by the first court was legally null and void. He requested the court to revoke the judgement and send the acts of the case back to the Court of Magistrates.

The argument, which occurred at Triq ta’ Bullara, involved father and son Ferdinand and Juliano Dine, and brothers Aleksander and Novi Marku, all Albanian.

The court was told that the Marku brothers appeared in two vehicles and drove aggressively at the father and son. Dine claimed that he tried to defend his father and himself.

Ferdinand Dine sustained grievous injuries allegedly at the hands of the brothers. Juliano Dine then struck Novi Marku, while the latter tried to run over the teenager with his car.

When Dine was arraigned in court, he was not assisted by an interpreter and did not fully understand the charges proffered against him. He admitted to causing slight bodily, unlawful possession of a cutting or pointed instrument, and causing damage exceeding €2,500 to Marku’s car. 

Magistrate Brigitte Sultana, presiding over the court in Gozo, had sentenced him to a two-year jail term suspended for four years and fined him €500. He was also ordered to pay the damages caused to third-party property. A protection order was issued in favour of the brothers. 

Separately, the Marku Brothers were accused of the attempted murder of Ferdinand Dine, while Novi Marku alone was accused of the attempted murder of the teenager, reckless driving and wilful damage. They denied the charges.

In his appeal, Dine argued that his guilty plea could not be deemed legally valid for the simple reason that the said guilty plea was not one which was unconditional in nature. Moreover, Dine declared that he was acting in self-defence when the alleged offences were committed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the plea, ruling that Dine did not understand what he was doing or the legal repercussions of his guilty plea. It ruled that the first court did not have the necessary legal requisites to proceed in the manner in which it did.

From the records of the case, it emerged that his lawyer said that: “the accused is willing to admit the charges but is pleading that he was acting in self-defence and in defence of his father Ferdinand Dine as well as after of the previous provocation by Novi Marku”.

The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that Dine’s admission was “conditional” rather than unconditional.

“The appellant’s declaration that he was acting in self-defence, rendered it evident that doubt existed as to whether he was in fact unequivocal with respect to his admission,” Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera held, adding that in case of doubt, such doubt must operate against the admission and not in its favour.

The court declared the proceedings before the Court of Magistrates (Gozo)  from the moment of the arraignment onwards to be null and void. It revoked the judgement delivered in March and ordered the court to resume from the moment that the charges were read out and confirmed on oath by the prosecuting officer.

The court also made it clear that Dine is to be summoned before the Court of Magistrates and not arraigned under arrest.

Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera presided over the Criminal Court of Appeal. Lawyers Michael Sciriha and Robert Spiteri assisted Dine.