Another seven officers from the police traffic unit were in court on Tuesday, barely one hour after an appeal judgment in a separate case which could impact the outcome of proceedings in their regard. 

The issue came to the fore when the officers, a third group among some 32 officers currently facing fraud charges for having allegedly received payments for “extra duties” without actually reporting for work, were summoned to court.

The first five cases, concerning a superintendent, two inspectors and two sergeants, kicked off early last week before Magistrate Audrey Demicoli, with seven more officers facing charges under summons on Monday before Magistrate Rachel Montebello. 

But on Tuesday, when another seven officers turned up in court before Magistrate Ian Farrugia for an informal session intended to map the way forward, Arthur Azzopardi and Alfred Abela, two of the lawyers assisting a number of officers, produced a copy of a judgment which could potentially have a bearing on the accused’s plight.

That judgment, delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal earlier on Tuesday, concerned a public officer (the traffic policemen are also public officers) who, back in 1994, had received a Lm7,000 government allowance to undertake a training course leading to a Diploma in Nursing, on condition of taking up employment in the public sector for a minimum of three years, after successfully completing his studies.

Failure to do so would incur a penalty of Lm7,000. 

In 1997, the accused, Charlot Caruana, began to work as a casual staff nurse at the ITU, resigning one year later.

He ultimately managed to negotiate an agreement whereby, rather than incur the penalty, he was to honour his dues by working as nurse reliever on a part-time basis for four years 20 days, as from 2004. 

He was subsequently targeted by criminal prosecution after reports reached the relative authorities that the nurse had signed the attendance sheet, without actually reporting for duty. 

Last year, Caruana was convicted before a Magistrates’ Court, landing a suspended sentence and an order to refund €21,930 to the Health Department. 

Upon appeal, his lawyers argued that since the accused had been charged with a continuous offence, (a repeated violation of the same provision of law), for purposes of calculating punishment, the prosecution should not have taken the total amount defrauded, but the amount relative to each hour of work, given that the accused was paid an hourly rate. 

His lawyers argued that the fraud would have been committed every hour the nurse did not report for duty.

This meant that the value, for purposes of calculating the range of applicable punishment, would be €7.43, the average hourly rate, rather than €21,930. 

In terms of punishment, this would effectively work out to a lowering of the possible maximum term of imprisonment from four or nine years, to a maximum of six months. 

The same value was also to apply for purposes of determining the commencement of prescription, the lawyers argued in that case. 

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, upheld the appeal, declaring that the offence was time-barred and acquitted the appellant. 

The accused in the case was assisted by Arthur Azzopardi and Michael Tanti-Dougall.

However, since case law on the subject raised by the defence lacked clarity and uniformity, the Court ordered a reference to the Justice Minister, recommending any necessary amendments to ensure clarity in the interpretation of the law and consequently, uniformity in sentencing. 

The outcome of this judgment was brought to the attention of Magistrate Ian Farrugia, as well as the prosecuting officers gathered on Tuesday for the traffic police hearing, with Dr Azzopardi arguing that if the law were to be amended, the officers could face “an enormous difference in punishment”.

Moreover, the cases could possibly be reduced to summary proceedings, the lawyer argued. 

Thus, before hearing evidence on the merits, it would be opportune for the Attorney General to take note of the appeal judgment, to decide whether it could impact the traffic policemen’s cases. 

For this reason, a minute of Tuesday’s sitting was sent to the AG’s Office, while the parties were instructed to come forward with more information at the next hearing later this month. 

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi, Alfred Abela, Ishmael Psaila and Mario Mifsud were assisting the officers. 

In terms of punishment, this would effectively work out to a lowering of the possible maximum term of imprisonment from 4 or 9 years, to a maximum of six months.