A man was spared a nine-month jail term and an €800 fine for aggravated drug possession after his conviction was found to have pivoted upon the testimony of a witness whose credibility was strongly questionable.
Jonathan Farrugia, 31, filed his appeal against the conviction, handed down in 2015, arguing that the testimony of Tarquin Vella, the man who had claimed to have bought one gram of cocaine from him, lacked credibility.
The case had stemmed from a crackdown operation by the drugs squad back in 2009 which led to Mr Vella’s arrest, who told police he had bought the drug from Mr Farrugia earlier that year while at the Birżebbuġa village feast.
When the police searched the alleged drug supplier’s home, nine months later in May 2010, they found empty plastic sachets, baking powder and traces of a whitish substance, later certified as cocaine.
However, in the course of the criminal proceedings against Mr Farrugia, Mr Vella’s conduct and testimony had been so unconvincing that it had landed him an investigation for perjury.
The witness had first denied having released a statement under oath before the inquiring magistrate and had further insisted that the signature on that statement was not his, later changing his version, saying that he had given a statement to the police.
After landing the conviction, the accused had highlighted that inconsistency and lack of credibility when filing his appeal.
“Naturally, the appellant makes this submission in the larger context of the case, because Tarquin Vella refers to an allegation in August 2009 whilst the search of the accused’s residence took place in May 2010,” said the court, presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti.
The Court of Criminal Appeal observed that although the judgment by the Magistrates’ Court was detailed, logical and based on correct legal principles, there was a “lurking doubt” as to guilt even on account of claims of friction between the appellant and the witness at the workplace.
“Even if in his deposition the accused was slightly evasive, this court is not convinced that the case against him had been proven beyond reasonable doubt as required in the criminal justice process,” said the court.
For this reason, the court cleared the appellant of the accusation of supplying drugs, finding him instead guilty of simple possession and handing him a €50 fine.
Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi was counsel to the appellant.