A man was cleared of smuggling heroin into the Corradino Correctional Facility 12 years ago after the court found that proof of his involvement in the incident was “totally lacking”.

Ronnie Pullicino was aged 19 when in 2010 he ended up facing criminal charges after some brownish substance was discovered inside a shoe destined for an inmate. 

A magisterial inquiry kicked off and investigations were taken over by the Drug Squad.

The youth was subsequently charged with possession of the drug under circumstances denoting that the illegal substance was not solely for his own personal use and also with trying to smuggle a prohibited item into the facility, without legitimate authority. 

He pleaded not guilty. 

During the proceedings a former inspector, who at the time of the incident was stationed at the Paola police station, testified that the case had been handled by a colleague who had since passed away. 

The inspector said that he had never seen the accused before that court sitting. 

The incident was subject to a magisterial inquiry and recordings of outgoing calls from prison to the accused’s grandad were produced in evidence. 

Criminal charges were filed against the inmate concerned as well as the accused’s grandfather, while the inquiring magistrate also recommended criminal action against the accused.

The youth testified before the inquiring magistrate in September 2010. 

However, he was not granted the right to consult a lawyer before testifying nor was he assisted by a lawyer throughout his testimony, observed the court when delivering judgment on Tuesday. 

Nor had the accused been given his right to silence, in such manner as to avoid potentially self-incriminating questions. 

In line with established jurisprudence, the court, presided over by Magistrate Josette Demicoli, discarded that declaration made by the accused without any legal assistance. 

A court-appointed scientific expert had analysed the suspicious substance, confirming that it consisted of 0.35 grams of heroin of 15% purity. 

But there was no proof that the drug had ever been in the accused’s possession, or that he was the one who had smuggled it into jail. 

Nor was there proof of some agreement to that effect with the inmate concerned or that he intended to pass on any drug to anyone. 

In light of such circumstances, the court concluded that “proof of his involvement was totally lacking” and pronounced an acquittal. 

Lawyer Mario Mifsud was defence counsel.