One-month jail term reduced to Lm50 fine

A Paola man yesterday had a one-month jail term reduced to a Lm50 fine after an appeal court ruled that the Magistrates' Court's could not jail a man for a crime he was not charged with.

Noel Pace, 29, and his wife Maria Dolores, 29, were originally found guilty of threatening Gabriella Busuttil in Qormi on November 28, 2000, at about 12.30 p.m., and breaching the peace.

She was fined Lm50 and he was jailed for a month and banned from driving for six months after he was also found guilty of driving dangerously and recklessly.

Noel Pace was also fined Lm100 for breaching a condition previously imposed by the court to harass Busuttil.

But the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday noted that it seemed that Pace was more likely jailed because the Magistrates' Court believed he had lied on oath.

Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano ruled that Pace had not been charged with perjury and as such could not be jailed for it. What the first court had to do, and which it had done, was order the police commissioner to take criminal action against Pace for perjury.

The appeal court heard how the incident took place while Busuttil and her friend Rita Micallef were driving home after work at the Vittoriosa market.

They claimed that Pace, accompanied by his wife, chased them and rammed his car into theirs for no apparent reason.

The Paces denied it and said their car had been towed to Medway Garage for repairs at the time of the alleged offence. Among other things, they also claimed that the first court had imposed too harsh a punishment.

Chief Justice DeGaetano noted that the evidence produced by the Paces to support their alibi did not provide a time. The only place where the time was recorded was on a document filled in by a certain Anthony Fenech, at least according to Noel Pace.

But it had been proven that Fenech was illiterate and therefore could not have filled in the document.

This showed that Pace was not being truthful and that the first court was justified in ordering the initiation of criminal proceedings for perjury.

But the Magistrates' Court could not be seen to be punishing Pace for perjury since his conviction or otherwise on that matter depended on the outcome of a separate court proceedings.