The earliest recorded letter originating from Malta was sent by Grand Master Philip de L’Isle Adam in 1532.  After all these years one might have thought that members of Maltese society would know better than to steal or disturb another person’s postal mail. In this age of electronic communication, where millions are invested on an annual basis in protecting one’s electronic mail, one might opine that it is easily forgotten that tampering with another person’s mail is a crime!

On June 22, 2022, Justice Aaron Bugeja, sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal, [appeal 346/2022] was tasked to consider whether the actions of an estranged husband amounted to the crime of tampering with another person’s postal mail. Due to the subject matter of the case, names of the parties shall not be referred to.

The appellant, the husband had been found guilty by the Magistrates' Court of having violated article 62(h) of Chapter 254 of the Laws of Malta, the Postal Services Act and article 85 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta, the Criminal Code, and punished him to a fine of €3,000 and €2,000 respectively. The husband felt aggrieved by that decision.

Amongst the grounds for appeal filed by the husband, the second grievance dealt with, according to him, the lack of evidence in relation to the necessary criminal intent accompanying the crime in terms of the Postal Services Act. On that basis he asked the Court of Criminal Appeal to revoke his finding of guilty.

Justice Bugeja, yet again, painstakingly delved into the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal as to when and under what circumstances it may overturn judgements of the Court of Magistrates.

One might opine that this exercise was too long for the untrained legal mind, yet true to form, principle and duty, Justice Bugeja, in his style for detail and hoping that lawyers constantly keep in mind the principles on which our courts function, did not shy away from such a duty. He also once again reiterated the general principles of the laws of evidence that have governed our legal system since time immemorial.

Issue revolved over the delivery address of COVID-19 cheque

On August 6, 2021, the wife had filed a report at her local police station that she had not received her government voucher, sent to qualifying citizens by MIMCOL in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The wife told the police that MIMCOL had informed her that they had sent her the said voucher and provided her the relative tracking number issued by Maltapost.

It transpired that the voucher had indeed been received by the occupant of the address that MIMCOL had in relation to the wife on June 21, 2021 at 3.02pm.

The wife further reported that she used to live at that address while she was still married to her husband, the appellant.

The police spoke to the husband who confirmed that he no longer lived there either, and that a Polish citizen lived there.

The police spoke to the new tenant who confirmed that he really lived there and after collecting all mail, always, promptly and dutifully passed it on to the husband. The police had to talk with the husband again and he confirmed the new tenant’s version and went on to confirm that amongst the post received by him from the new tenant, there also were three envelopes not addressed to him, and he did not open them.

The husband claimed that he had written on the envelopes that the addressee no longer lived at that address and re-mailed them. According to the husband this was what he always did upon receipt of mail addressed to his estranged wife.

At this juncture, the words of Eleanor Roosevelt spring to mind: “There are always two choices. Two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it’s easy.”

And what a choice, the husband had – either to ensure that the post addressed to his estranged wife reached her in a timely and uninterrupted fashion once in his possession or risk a fine that ranges between €1,000 and €25,000 or a term of imprisonment between one month and 12 months or to both punishments together!

Article 62(h) of the Postal Services Act, states that any person who maliciously opens or causes to be opened any postal article which ought to have been delivered, or maliciously does any act whereby the due delivery of a postal article, is prevented or delayed, or communicates or makes use of any information obtained from a postal article so opened, shall be guilty of this crime.

The prosecution called as its witnesses, the wife to confirm her report and her lack of receiving her financial assistance vouchers issued by MIMCOL during the COVID-19 pandemic, a representative of Maltapost plc to confirm that the postal object had indeed been received by the occupant of the address where said postal object was addressed, a MIMCOL representative to prove that the wife was entitled to said vouchers and that the vouchers had been sent to her via postal mail at a specific address and also the new tenant.

Pertinent to point out at this juncture that the new tenant and his family were living at the said address based on a valid lease agreement entered into with the owner of the property – the estranged husband himself.

During the proceedings, the husband stated that he followed a practice as dictated by good judgement and known to one and all that once he no longer had any contact with his wife, he would state on each envelope that his wife no longer lived there and proceed to post back the postal articles in the letter boxes owned and controlled by Maltapost. The husband claimed that this was done by him without any malice, operating under the belief that the postal operator would return the item to the sender.

On this basis, the Court of Appeal concluded that the husband was accepting the version of events as proven by the prosecution. The husband had failed in providing Maltapost and/or MIMCOL with an alternative address where his wife resided.

Justice Bugeja proceeded to interpret the law whereby due delivery of a postal object was not meant to be read and construed as meaning only that the postal item had to be delivered at the address identified, but rather that it had to be received by the addressee.

On this reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that for a person to just state “no longer lives here” was not sufficient, since this would render the postal operator in an impossible situation to carry out his duty.

The court held that in those instances where the recipient of a third party’s postal mail did not know or have any contact with the previous occupant, that person should proceed to Maltpost to explain that no forwarding address could be provided. Yet this was not the case for the appellant.

Justice Bugeja concluded that an act of omission, by the husband failing to provide Maltapost with his estranged wife’s current address, was an act of malice thus rendering him guilty of this crime.

The husband could not plead that he did not know where she resided, they both knew each other well, they had a plethora of ongoing legal issues and court cases that had been ongoing for around 4 years.

On this basis the court concluded that indirectly they still were in contact, and the husband could easily have asked his lawyer to communicate with his wife as to where she was to receive her postal mail.

The fact that the wife was “confusing” property rights with residency rights, did not exculpate the husband. Once in receipt of the wife’s mail, the husband became part of the chain of logistics that the law protected and wanted protected to ensure safe, timely and adequate receipt of postal objects by their intended addressee. Whether one found himself in this chain of logistics by violation or not, was irrelevant. Once a part of it, one was obliged to ensure his best.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the acts of the husband could therefore be only interpreted as having been done or not done, with the necessary intention to disrupt due receipt by the wife of his government-issued financial assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The fine of €3,000 was confirmed.

Dr Arthur Azzopardi is Managing Partner, Azzopardi, Borg & Associates Advocates.