A man facing trial over “one isolated episode” allegedly linking him to a drug trafficking conspiracy 12 years ago, will have his case decided instead by a Magistrates’ Court.

Ivan Cachia, now 47, landed in hot water after giving in to his father’s request for help back in 2012.

It all started when the suspect's father, Paul, agreed to hide some drugs belonging to a third party on his farm at Aħrax tal-Mellieħa. He was to keep the drugs only overnight and was promised €1,000 for the job. 

At the time, the accused’s mother was seriously ill and his father needed the money to help pay for her medical treatment. 

He let his son in on the plan, asking him to lend a hand that night. 

The son refused outright, immediately wary at the mention of drugs. But he ultimately let himself be swayed by his father, relenting only because the family was in dire need of funds for his mother’s treatment.

On the scheduled date, the father and son headed to the farmhouse at around 8.30pm. An hour or so later, a speedboat transported Jose’ Xerry who soon arrived at the farmhouse, accompanied by the accused’s father. 

The Cachias had dug a hole in a field.

“Joe had a sort of sack in his hand and he was holding it with one hand and he was the one who dropped it into the hole,” the accused later told investigators.

The father and son covered the sack with soil and then tipped a wheelbarrow load of cement on top to secure the hiding spot. 

The son got no payment for his role. His father never got the promised €1,000 but ended up in great trouble because the drugs mysteriously disappeared during the night. 

Both father and son were criminally charged over their alleged involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy. 

They both pleaded not guilty.

The Attorney General decided in terms of article 22 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance that both father and son were to be judged by a Criminal Court under a bill of indictment, thus spelling harsher punishment.

Two years ago, a judge upheld a request by the father’s lawyers to reverse the AG’s decision and sent the case to be decided by a Magistrates’ Court. 

A bill of indictment was issued in respect of the son in 2022 and his lawyers filed an identical request in terms of article 22(2A)(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

The AG objected. 

Accused played 'very minimal role'

When delivering judgment the Criminal Court, presided over by Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras, observed that the defence’s request pivoted on their claim that the accused allegedly played “a very minimal role”.

He allegedly “marginally” helped his father and was not promised any reward. 

After examining the records of the case, the judge noted that the amount of drug allegedly hidden in Cachia’s farmhouse was not known. 

In his statement to the police, the son referred to the drug as “cannabis soap” but he could not tell how much there was since he never saw the contents of the “sack” in “Joey’s” hand. 

He simply said it was roughly “one foot square and one foot high.” 

No one had seen the drug. 

The police also confirmed that they only had the accused’s account to go by. 

The court also observed that the plan to hide the drug was allegedly hatched between the father and “Joey”, who was known for his alleged involvement in drug trafficking and transportation of illegal migrants.

The son had no direct contact with Xerry and acted under pressure, only agreeing to help his father because he was aware of the family’s financial difficulties.

He had no knowledge of the extent or nature of the conspiracy and made no financial gain. 

Moreover, he cooperated fully with investigators and was allegedly involved in a solitary episode that was truly minimal.

He therefore deserved mitigation of punishment. 

The judge also observed that the accused’s father had been sent back to the Magistrates’ Court. 

It “would make no logical nor legal sense” for the son to be judged by a Criminal Court when he allegedly played a smaller role than his father, said the judge, upholding his request and ordering the case to be decided by a Magistrates’ Court.

The maximum punishment in trial by jury is life imprisonment, whereas at Magistrates' Court the maximum punishment is 10 years imprisonment.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Kathleen Calleja Grima are defence counsel.