Retrial for man who was erroneously charged with trading in influence instead of bribery
A Maltese man convicted for VRT fraud last February and sentenced to three years in prison is to have a retrial after it emerged that he had been charged with the wrong offence.
Godfrey Formosa had pleaded guilty to having traded in influence with the scope of getting a VRT tester to approve a road licence for his less-thanroadworthy vehicle.
He had formally been charged with trading in influence, knowingly making use of falsified documents, making a false declaration to a public authority, falsifying a VRT certificate and driving a car without a road licence. Without the assistance of a lawyer, Formosa pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
After seeking the services of lawyer Stefano Filletti one month later, an appeal was filed in court. Filletti argued that the normal practice for occasions when no legal assistance is provided to the accused that the court is to ensure the validity of the arrest and that charges are backed up by adequate evidence.
He added that the court must consider the police testimony against the established facts of the case in order to ascertain that the charges are legally correct and have a basis at law.
The court found that the accused should not have been found guilty of trading in influence because when police questioned him for his initial statement, the accused was asked about a separate offence. Judge Edwina Grima, presiding over the case, observed that the man’s confession in the statement was for the offence of bribery, and not trading in influence.
Filletti explained the seriousness of the trading in influence offence, which is punishable by a minimum sentence of three years while bribery carries with it the possibility of a suspended sentence. The lawyer continued to argue that the initial sentence, based on the wrong offence, was also excessive because the accused had cooperated with the police and filed an early admission.
The Court of Appeal upheld the defence’s submissions and a retrial was ordered.