Two men were let off the hook 15 years after their police statements over the theft of a brand new BMW from the importer’s garage in 2005 were declared inadmissible on appeal.
Daniel Lanzon, 34 and Joseph Zaffarese, 45, had been charged alongside two other men, over their alleged involvement in the disappearance of a BMW Series 116 from the Gżira garage and its subsequent sale, twice over, at ridiculously below-market prices.
Police had charged Mr Lanzon with having, back in August 2005, stolen the car and subsequently, together with Alfred Gialanze, sold it to Mr Zaffarese for €466 (Lm200).
In turn, the buyer had transferred the vehicle to Carmel Debono for the paltry sum of €1,631 (Lm700).
Investigators had come across the BMW parked close by to Debono’s home.
Under police questioning, all four suspects appeared to leave no doubt as to their knowledge that the vehicle had been taken straight out of the importer’s garage, both on account of its brand new appearance as well as indicated by its registered mileage.
Gialanze and Debono had admitted to their involvement in the plot and had been sentenced accordingly.
Meanwhile criminal proceedings continued against the other two men, resulting in a two-and-a-half year effective jail term for Mr Lanzon and an 18-month jail term suspended for three years for Mr Zaffarese.
The two men appealed that judgment delivered by the Magistrates’ Court in 2014.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, observed that the only proof linking the appellants to the crime lay in their statements released under interrogation, in which they “unconditionally incriminated themselves and admitted their involvement in the crime.”
There was no eye witness, nor any incriminating fingerprints, CCTV footage, phone calls or DNA match to nail the suspects.
The Court observed that “for some inexplicable reason” the other two men involved in the plot had not been called to testify.
The prosecution had tried to make up for this omission only too late in the appeal stage when the request to bring forward additional witnesses could not be upheld in terms of the law.
Delving into the ongoing “saga” before the local and European courts as to the admissibility or otherwise of such statements, Madam Justice Grima concluded that the key to the solution lay in the dissenting opinion of two ECHR Judges to a judgment delivered in Farrugia vs Malta in June 2019.
In that case, the European Court of Human Rights had applied a twofold test, adopted in Beuze vs Belgium, where it considered whether there had been “compelling reasons” to deny early access to legal advice and if not, to assess the overall fairness of the proceedings.
However, Judges Serghides and Pinto de Albuquerque disagreed and said that if there was no compelling reason to deny a suspect early legal assistance, then that “automatically” breached his fundamental right to a fair hearing .
Madam Justice Grima agreed with this view, applying it solely to statements released before 2010 when Maltese law totally prohibited early access to a lawyer, placing the suspect in a “disadvantaged” position should his statement subsequently be used as evidence against him.
Under such circumstances there was no need to assess “the overall fairness of the proceedings,” the Court said, applying this reasoning to the case at hand and declaring as inadmissible the appellants’ statements, which had been “determining” in their conviction before the Magistrates’ Court.
The Court thus upheld their appeal, overturning the conviction and clearing both men of all criminal liability.
Lawyers Carm Mifsud Bonnici and Noel Camilleri assisted the appellants.