Man’s guilty verdict confirmed on appeal, €2,000 fine and six-month license suspension upheld

A man who had been convicted of driving under the influence and had received a hefty fine and a six-month license suspension has had his guilty verdict confirmed on appeal.

Jonathan Pace, 31, was accused of getting behind the wheel in a state unfit for driving and exceeding the legal limit for alcohol consumption. The incident took place on 7 February 2016. In its original judgment, the courts found Pace guilty of both charges, ordered him to pay a fine worth €2,000 and suspended his license for six months.

Pace appealed this decision, asked the courts to nullify the original judgment and deliver a more “fair” and “adequate” one based on the facts of the case. Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, presiding over the case before the Criminal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the original judgment while identifying the shortcomings in the appellant’s arguments.

Chief Justice Camilleri said that ultimately, the driver went down the wrong side of a one-way street, told officers he was going to Xlendi when he was, in fact, driving in the opposite direction, and stank of alcohol.

At about 2.15am on 7 February 2016, preparations were underway for a police road block in Rabat, Gozo. Police spotted a Peugeot, being driven by Pace, going down the wrong way on a one-way street. Police sergeant Loreto Buttigieg stopped the driver to ask him to turn around and go back up the right way. Buttigieg also gave instructions to issue Pace a ticket.

Noting the smell of alcohol coming from the driver, Buttigieg informed Pace that he would be subjecting him to a breathalyser test. This test had to be conducted multiple times because the driver was not blowing into the machine adequately.

Police Inspector Bernard Saliba took over, and they finally managed to get a proper reading, which was 0070.6 mg/100ml. The legal limit for alcohol consumption in Malta is 0.8mg per litre. Authorities took note of the fact that half an hour had passed until they managed to get a proper reading, and informed the driver that he cannot be driving in that state.

In his appeal, the defence team for Pace argued that the breathalyser test was carried out using instruments that were not properly scheduled, such as the Alcovisor Professional Breath Alcohol Analyser. The prosecution was not in a position to say whether this apparatus had been used for the test. Pictures exhibited in court for the appeal, however, confirmed that this apparatus was used, leading the court to reject this argument.

It was also argued that because the onus is on the police to prove guilt, the prosecution only exhibited one breathalyser test in court, the one that came out positive. Lawyers contended that the police did not carry out their duties properly. The court also rejected this argument on the basis that the previous readings came up as ‘insufficient’, meaning they do not constitute as proof since there were no actual alcohol level readings.

The fact that Inspector Spiteri did not know the proper procedure for carrying out breathalyser tests, as had been confirmed in the original hearing, was stressed. Such procedure was never outlined in court, the defense did not bring out the instruction manual to point out where the specific procedural shortcomings took place, therefore the court could not find wrongdoing here.