A man convicted of drug possession may be spared a mandatory effective jail term after a court of appeal upheld his request for referral to the drug offenders’ rehabilitation board.

Jotham Saliba, 51, had landed an 18-month effective jail term and a €2,300 fine upon his conviction in 2019 before a Magistrates’ Court that had declared him guilty of aggravated possession of ecstasy, simple possession of cocaine and cannabis as well as recidivism.

At appeal stage, his lawyers argued that the Magistrates’ Court had made a wrong assessment of the facts and had based itself solely upon the quantity of drugs found, without proof that he actually intended to traffic or consign the drugs.

Not charged with trafficking

During the hearing of the appeal, the man’s lawyers also requested the court to assume the function of a Drugs Court and consequently refer the case to the Drug Offenders Rehabilitation Board, in terms of the Drug Dependence (Treatment Not Imprisonment) Act.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja, observed that the raison d’etre of that law was to set up a framework tailored to help drug addicts, by focusing upon rehabilitation rather than retribution.

An expert psychologist confirmed that at the time of his arrest, the appellant had been highly dependent on ecstasy, but had since then registered significant progress and taken concrete steps in kicking the habit.

The court observed that the appellant had made a substantial effort to break free from his drug dependency, noting further that circumstantial evidence was not “sufficiently secure” in proving that the appellant had been trafficking drugs.

In any case, the prosecution had not charged him with trafficking.

The court upheld the appellant’s request, assumed the functions of a Drugs Court and referred the case to the relative board for its report.

In case of a favourable report by that board, as to the appellant’s rehabilitation, the court would then not be obliged to impose a mandatory effective jail term but could mitigate the punishment.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Amadeus Cachia assisted the appellant.