A 33-year old man who faced criminal prosecution for allegedly causing the death of his friend through a heroin overdose when the two were 16-years old  has had his acquittal confirmed on appeal.

It all began when officers at the Zabbar police station received a call from St Luke’s Hospital at around 4:00am on February 26, 2006 saying that a 16-year old boy had been admitted at the emergency department suffering from a drug overdose.

Doctors certified the patient in critical condition.

He died two days later.

His friend, also 16, was subsequently charged with involuntary homicide, procuring heroin, unlawful possession of the drug as well as committing these offences within 100 metres of a place frequented by youths.

The man, whose name cannot be published because he was a minor at the time, pleaded not guilty and was granted bail.

Seven years later, the accused was acquitted by a Magistrates’ Court which had ruled out as inadmissible the statement he had released to the police as a minor, totally unassisted at the time.

The Attorney General filed an appeal, arguing that the first court was wrong in declaring the accused’s statement as inadmissible.

That statement was not the sole evidence, argued the prosecution, pointing at other circumstantial evidence allegedly linking the accused to the victim’s death.

That evidence included messages exchanged between the accused and his friend, making plans to meet near a Zejtun reservoir and certain traces of drug abuse found later by police near that site.

The victim’s father subsequently told police about his son’s drug abuse.

The teen had been found lying unconscious inside a Marsascala flat by his brother who first tried to assist him before calling for help.

Final judgment was delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided by Mr Justice Neville Camilleri, who was assigned the case in January 2023.

The accused’s lawyer rebutted the AG’s argument about the pre-trial statement released when the accused was a 16-year old.

He pointed out that neither his parents nor a lawyer were present when the then-minor was questioned by police.

After citing caselaw on the subject of legal assistance in the pre-arraignment stage, the court observed that prior to 2010 Maltese law absolutely prohibited legal advice or assistance to a suspect.

In this case, the suspect was a minor at the time and neither of his parents was present when he was interrogated.

Not only was he a vulnerable person but since his conduct sheet was totally untainted, that meant that the suspect - unlike someone used to criminal ways -was not at all familiar with legal procedures, observed the judge.

When all was considered the court confirmed the conclusion of the Magistrates’ Court and turned down the AG’s argument.

Statements made by the accused during an onsite visit to the reservoir were also discarded since he lacked the necessary awareness and assistance at the time.

The only remaining evidence was a report by a digital forensic expert about messages exchanged by the two 16-year olds prior to the incident, indicating that there was something going on between them.

But beyond that, there was nothing else.

Although the first court had declared that it was convinced that the accused was somehow involved, that evidence alone did not suffice.

Once the accused’s statement was declared inadmissible, there was nothing linking him to the crime, said the court, concluding that the prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The AG’s appeal was thus rejected and the acquittal was confirmed.

Lawyer Roberto Montalto was defence counsel.