A father-of-two who turned his life around after reaching out for help to quit his drug addiction, becoming a role model reaching out to other victims, has been spared imprisonment.

Walter Desira, 44, had fallen into the habit when going through hard times years ago but had since transformed his life into a “success story” after reaching out to Caritas for help. 

His cannabis addiction had landed him on the wrong side of the law 10 years ago, when he faced prosecution for cultivation and aggravated possession of the plant as well as simple possession of cannabis resin.

In March 2017, he was declared guilty of cultivating cannabis and simple possession of cannabis resin and was condemned by a Magistrates’ Court to a 20-month jail term plus a €3,000 fine.

Moreover, all his assets which had been targeted by a freezing order, were to be confiscated by the State. 

That conviction prompted an appeal and a request for the Court of Criminal Appeal to assume the function of a Drugs Court in terms of the Drug Dependence (Treatment Not Imprisonment) Act.

Desira was assessed regularly by a review board that heard testimony stating the case was considered to be a “success story”.

He had cooperated fully during rehabilitation, returning weekly urine samples certifying that he was drug-free.

In fact, he was now viewed as a “role model”, helping other victims through the “giving back” programme at Caritas, the court was told. 

He was also focused on making his job a success, while making up on lost family time.

In light of such evidence, the court, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, concluded that since the offences stemmed from the appellant’s former drug dependency, he deserved mitigation of punishment. 

Consequently, the effective jail term was lowered to a six-month term suspended for two years, while the fine was slashed to €600.

As for the freezing order, the court observed that it had been imposed at a time when all cultivation was encompassed within the definition of trafficking.

Since then, the law had been amended and, therefore, that order, targeting all the appellant’s properties since the initial stages of the proceedings, was to be revoked. 

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi was defence counsel.