A man has been cleared of causing the death of an elderly pedestrian who was killed as he crossed back to his car after stopping to buy some ‘imqaret’ from a kiosk on the Rabat road. 

The incident occurred twelve years ago, one November morning in 2009 as the driver, Robert Micallef, was heading down road towards Attard.

He later described how he was going at low speed when a man suddenly stepped out from behind a truck approaching on the other side of the road in the direction of Rabat.

He immediately hit the brakes of his Fiat Punto but was unable to avoid impact. 

A police sergeant who reached the accident site just as the victim was being transferred into an ambulance confirmed that the Fiat Punto was stationary in the middle of the road, facing the same direction as the victim’s own Toyota Tercel that was parked by the roadside. 

The right side of the Fiat’s mudguard and windscreen were damaged.

The victim succumbed to his injuries shortly after being rushed to hospital suffering a 23-centimetre laceration on the leg, a fractured arm, facial cuts as well as damage to various internal organs caused upon impact with the windscreen. 

An emergency consultant later described those injuries when testifying in court. 

An elderly passenger who happened to be waiting in the Toyota while his friend crossed over to the tea and coffee kiosk to buy some ‘mqaret’ told police how he had watched the victim walk to the opposite side of Mdina Road.

He then heard a loud braking sound and spotted his friend lying on the ground.

The Fiat driver was subsequently charged with involuntary homicide. 

When delivering judgment this week the court, presided over by magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit, observed that the prosecution was to prove that the accused had caused the pedestrian’s death through culpable negligence that amounted to criminal misconduct. 

In case of traffic accidents, circumstantial evidence was often more useful than eyewitness accounts which were sometimes conflicting, subjective and colourful.

But in this particular case, there was no eyewitness to shed light on the dynamics of the incident and the only reliable evidence was that provided by court-appointed experts, observed the court. 

One such expert tasked with gathering testimonies and conducting an onsite inquiry reported that the victim had parked his car in a no-parking zone and crossed the double white lines to the other side of the busy road.

Then with his bag of ten ‘imqaret’ in hand he had quickly stepped out from behind the passing truck, straight into the path of the accused’s vehicle. 

A traffic expert originally reported that the accused had been driving at 90 km/h when he spotted the pedestrian, leaving 40-metre long brakes marks before the fatal impact that occurred at 65 km/h.

Yet when cross examined by the defence and after being confronted with skid marks recorded by another expert, the traffic expert re-assessed his calculations, concluding that the accused must have been driving at 74 km/h, which was under the 80 km/h speed limit. 

That discrepancy made it more difficult for the prosecution to prove its case.

The court also heard how the kiosk used to operate without a permit in a zone where no stopping was allowed and in fact, the vendor had been warned of the “great danger” he was creating. 

In light of all evidence the court could not reach a convincing conclusion as to the dynamics of the incident.

Moreover the victim’s own contributory negligence was also to be considered.

The defence had also argued that charges under the Traffic Regulations Ordinance had been added on by the Attorney General without requesting an amendment to the original charges.

The court upheld that argument and discarded those additional charges. 

The defence argued further that the action was time barred, minuting their disapproval of delays in proceedings caused by useless referrals by the AG.

The offence of involuntary homicide was subject to a maximum two-year jail term and therefore a five-year prescriptive term.

The accused had been served notice of the charges as amended in 2015, well beyond that five-year period.

In light of all considerations the court pronounced an acquittal. 

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Jacob Magri were defence counsel.