A man involved in a fatal hit-and-run accident nine years ago had his case referred back to the Magistrates’ Court after his conviction was annulled on appeal over a technical error in the judgment.

Mel Spiteri was 18 when he was charged with the involuntary homicide of a 77-year-old British tourist who had been staying at a Qawra hotel at the time. 

The accident had happened late in the evening on June 26, 2011 when the teenager had taken the keys of his father’s Mitsubishi FTO before leaving his parents’ boathouse, accompanied by his girlfriend.

Shortly after, while driving the sporty car along the Qawra promenade, the driver had run over the elderly pedestrian who, at the time, had been crossing the road at a zebra crossing.

The victim’s 78-year-old husband later testified at the compilation of evidence stage, recalling how the couple had been halfway across the road when the accused’s car suddenly materialised in a “burst of headlights” hitting his wife who was slightly ahead of him.

Upon impact, the woman’s body was flung some 40 metres up the road and was pronounced dead on the spot.

The driver was subsequently tracked down and was prosecuted for involuntary homicide, caused through his reckless driving.

At the time he had been driving without a licence or insurance cover and also at excessive speed.

Three years later, he was convicted and condemned to a two-year effective jail term, a €2,330 fine and a one-year driving ban. He was also ordered to foot court expenses totalling €4,000.

An appeal was filed by the driver, his lawyers arguing that he had been sorry for his actions, had a clean criminal record and that, moreover, the victim had also contributed to the incident.

However, the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, noted that there was a technical defect in the first judgment, not pointed out by the appellant, which brought about the nullity of that conviction.

Indeed, the Magistrates’ Court had not stated clearly, in the operative part of the judgment, the charges upon which it was basing the conviction. 

Although earlier on in the judgment, there had been a “detailed analysis” of the charges and the relative provisions of law, those charges were not spelt out in the final part, thus rendering the judgment null.

Moreover, the first court had referred to a “legal notice” when it actually meant “subsidiary legislation”, went on the court, citing case-law on this subject matter.

For this reason, the court annulled the conviction and referred the case back to the Magistrates’ Courts to be heard anew.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Amadeus Cachia were counsel to the appellant.