A woman who “naively” planned to buy three ecstasy pills to share at a Paceville party 13 years ago – when she was just 16 – has been cleared of drug trafficking.

The charges date back to 2008 when the then schoolgirl and her mate told a friend about their wish to get hold of some ecstasy pills, which they could share at a Paceville party.

He promised to procure three pills at €15 each and told them that he would hand them the drugs at the party.

On the day, he handed the three pills to the accused outside the venue and she immediately took one. She handed another to her friend inside and kept the third to split later.

On the dance floor, the man collapsed and lost consciousness. He was rushed to hospital in critical condition suffering from an overdose.

The girls flagged their concerns to a doctor in hospital, telling him that the patient had consumed ecstasy but they had no idea how many pills he had taken.

The police found a solitary ecstasy pill, split in half, in possession of the accused.

The girls recounted how, some months previously, they had shared a cannabis joint rolled up out of a small piece of cannabis procured by their friend.

The accused was charged with trafficking ecstasy and cannabis, aggravated possession of ecstasy as well as cannabis possession.

Magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras observed that the girl’s statement had been taken at a time when Maltese law did not grant a suspect the right to legal assistance in the pre-trial stage.

The 16-year-old suspect, with an untainted criminal record and no previous experience of police questioning, had made self-incriminating declarations.

She was not even accompanied by one of her parents, observed the court, declaring that statement as inadmissible evidence.

Her male friend was never summoned to testify, the court also noted.

Magistrate Galea Sciberras concluded that this was not a case of “trafficking by sharing”, as argued by the prosecution, but,  rather, a case of “joint acquisition”, where the accused and her friend had hatched a plan to buy drugs.

Likewise, a month or so before the party they had jointly acquired some cannabis for sharing.

A forensic psychologist attributed the solitary incident to the girl’s immaturity and naivety, turning to drugs at a time when she was facing personal problems without weighing the consequences.

The court concluded that the charges of trafficking and aggravated possession of ecstasy had not been sufficiently proved.

As for the charge of simple cannabis possession, the court turned to recent amendments under which a minor found in possession of no more than seven grams of the drug is not subject to criminal proceedings but may be placed under a care or treatment plan.

The accused could not be found guilty of facts which no longer amounted to an offence.

The court observed that the case revolved around an “isolated incident” attributable to “her immaturity and naivety” and that the woman now led a very stable life.

The magistrate declared the woman guilty of simple possession of ecstasy and conditionally discharged her for nine months, banning the publication of both her name and that of her friend.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Francesca Zarb were the defence counsel.