Man acquitted on appeal of sharing cocaine with a 13-year-old girl

A man has been acquitted on appeal of sharing cocaine with a girl who was 13 years old at the time following contradictory statements from her.

Ayrton Bugeja from Floriana was originally arraigned before the Court of Magistrates and found guilty of trafficking by sharing. The incident occurred in June 2016. The man was handed a two-year prison term suspended for three years. He was also fined €2,000.

Bugeja appealed the judgement arguing that the case was built on what the girl had testified and that she had changed her version a number of times, however, this was not corroborated by any other witness. The girl said she did not recall and she answered at random.

The man argued that while the girl was believed, the accused, who had given his statement to the police and testified in the proceedings, had been consistent throughout.

The Court of Criminal Appeal then analysed all the testimonies given before the Court of Magistrates, including that given by the girl and Bugeja, who had told the police that he does not use drugs and was trying to build a career in the music scene.

It then referred to the provision in the Criminal Code when evaluating the credibility of the witness, which takes into account the witness’ demeanour, conduct and character, as well as the probability, consistency and other features of the statement, which may be corroborated by other statements.

In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the testimony of the girl needs to be given the same weight as that of the appellant, since they are both principle witnesses in the case, and are contradicting one another.

The girl had claimed that the man gave her 16 lines of cocaine, and then said she did not know the exact amount, but since she had overdosed, then it had to be a certain amount.

Bugeja on the other hand denied giving her any drugs.

The Court of Criminal Appeal said it would be ideal if the court deciding the case could hear the case from beginning to end, to be able to evaluate the witness’s behaviour.

The girl had first testified before the Court of Magistrates, but her testimony had not been transcribed. When she was called to testify again, it seems she changed her version. This had also been confirmed by Police Superintendent Josric Mifsud who said that when the girl testified, she had said that she consumed drugs with others and there was an adult present with them, but they agreed his name will not be revealed.

When the girl testified again, she said there was only her friend.

“Whoever has to judge the case, has two versions from the same witness but has no opportunity to see the girl’s first testimony because it is not part of the records of the case, and one cannot compare the two versions or see whether she has been consistent,” the court observed, adding that this was the most suitable exercise to be carried out when faced with two contradictory statements.

“Then it is in the hands of the court, whether to believe the first or second version,” the Court of Criminal Appeal held.

The court also took into account that the girl’s friend said that she never saw Bugeja giving her drugs, despite being with her all the time. She also did not recognise the accused in the courtroom, neither did she know him.

The court also held that it could not take into account the testimony of the mother of the girl, in which she claimed that someone had spiked her daughter’s drink, with the court noting that at no point did the woman claim it had been the accused.

On the other hand, the court was faced with the appellant’s version who was consistent throughout, denying any involvement in the incident and of having given her any drugs.

The court also noted that the girl claimed it was her first time she took cocaine, but the witness had given a good explanation on how this is consumed. It was also observed that the girl claimed she did not lie the first time nor during her second testimony, however, she had forgotten what she said closer to the incident, with the court noting that she had “partial amnesia”.

“In the circumstances, the court feels that the appellant’s testimony is closer to the truth, and is thereby revoking the sentence handed by the Court of Magistrates declaring the judgement not safe and satisfactory,” Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera said.

Bugeja was acquitted of all charges brought against him

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Jacob Magri assisted Bugeja.