Referenza: 13/1998

Dettalji tas-Sentenza


Data
01/12/2005
Qorti
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (SUPERIOR)
Ġudikatura
DE GAETANO VINCENT, FILLETTI JOSEPH A., SCICLUNA DAVID
Partijiet
IR-REPUBBLIKA TA' MALTA vs MARIO POLLACCO
ECLI
N/A
Judgement Type
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Kawża Llinkjata
N/A

Kliem Ewlieni / Fil-Qosor


Kliem Ewlieni
IRREGOLARITAJIET MATUL IL GURI U INTERPRETAZZJONI U APPLIKAZZJONI ZBALJATA TAL LIGI LI SETA KELLHOM INFLUENZA FUQ IL VERDETT - MANIFESTAMENT MISJUB HATI HAZIN FUQ IL FATTI TAL KAZ
Fil-Qosor
L-ewwel Qorti ma kinitx korretta meta mpediet lid-difiza milli taghmel mistoqsijiet lil ChristopherFarrugia u Robert Cardona minghajr ma stabbiliet a priori "li huma jkunu, qabel in-nomina taghhom, jew esprimew ruhhom dwar il-htija . tal-akkuzat, jew altrimenti, fil-kors ta' xi xoghol li jkunu gewimqabbda jaghmlu minn awtorita` mhux gudizzjarja in konnessjoni mal-in genere, ikunu iffurmaw 'pre-gudizzju' kontra l-imsemmi ...akkuzat".

Din il-Qorti trid naturalment tistabilixxi jekk tali irregolarita` setghetx kellha influwenza fuq il-verdett. U sa certu punt hija irregolarita` marbuta intimament mat-talba li saret mill-appellant biex jigu nominati esperti sabiex jezaminaw ix-xaghra us-cellular debris.
Kull indirizz irid ikun bilancjat, u l-kaz tad-difiza ghandu jigi pprezentat b'mod adegwat. Rosemary Pattenden, fil-ktieb taghha Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation (OUP1990), tghid:

"Whatever mode of summing-up the judge employs he must ensure that the defenceis outlined fairly. How this is done is governed by open-ended rules. The judge must put the ‘substance' of the defence, however weak, save where the accused has failed to discharge an evidential burden. ‘[T]hat does not mean to say he is to paint in the details or to comment on every argument whichhas been used or to remind them of the whole of the evidence which has been given.' (per Goddard LCJ, Clayton-Wright (1948) 33 Cr App R 22 p. 29). As the New Zealand Court of Appeal stressed in R. v.Ryan (per Richmond J., [1973] 2 NZLR 611 at p. 615): 'Each case obviously must be judged having regard to its own particular facts. In some cases it may be sufficient for the Judge to refer in the most general terms to the issues raised by the defence, but in others it may be necessary for him notmerely to point out in broad terms what the defence is but to refer to the salient facts and especially those upon which the accused based his defence. Again, an election by the Judge to embark on a discussion of the evidence and inferences therefrom which are favourable to the Crown may throw uponhim the duty of making some reference to any important features of the case which militate against those inferences'.

The summing-up, in other words, should look balanced, and any defence whichis not merely fanciful or speculative, particularly in a homicide trial, must be put to the jury.The Judge can, of course, comment adversely on an unconvincing defence." (pp. 178-180).

U f'Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2001, para. D15.16, p.1448, naqraw:

"Provided he emphasises thatthe jury are entitled to ignore his opinions, the judge may comment on the evidence in a way which indicates his own views. Convictions have been upheld notwithstanding robust comments to the detriment of the defence case (e.g. O'Donnell (1917) 12 Cr App R 219, in which it was held that the judge was within his rights to tell the jury that the accused's story was a 'remarkable one' and contrary toprevious statements that he had made). However, the judge must not be so critical as to effectivelywithdraw the issue of guilt or innocence from the jury (Canny (1945) 30 Cr App R 143, in which a conviction was quashed because the judge repeatedly told the jury that the defence case was absurd andthat there was no foundation for defence allegations against the prosecution witnesses). It is thejudge's duty to state matters 'clearly, impartially and logically', and not to indulge in inappropriate sarcasm or extravagant comment (Berrada (1989) 91 Cr App R 131)."

Tajjeb ukoll li ssir referenza ghal dak li qal Simon Brown, L.J. f'R. v. Nelson [1997] Crim. L. R. 234, CA (kif ikkwotat f'Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2003, p. 464 para. 4-376), u li mieghu din il-Qorti taqbel perfettament:

"Every defendant, we repeat, has the right to have his defence, whatever it may be, faithfully and accurately placed before the jury. But that is not to say that he isentitled to have it rehearsed blandly and uncritically in the summing up. No defendant has the right to demand that the judge shall conceal from the jury such difficulties and deficiencies as are apparent in his case. Of course, the judge must remain impartial. But if common sense and reason demonstrate that a given defence is riddled with implausibilities, inconsistencies and illogicalities . there is no reason for the judge to withhold from the jury the benefit of his own powers of logic andanalysis. Why should pointing out those matters be thought to smack of partiality? To play a case straight down the middle requires only that a judge gives full and fair weight to the evidence and arguments of each side. The judge is not required to top up the case for one side so as to correct anysubstantial imbalance. He has no duty to cloud the merits either by obscuring the strengths of one side or the weaknesses of the other. Impartiality means no more and no less than that the judge shallfairly state and analyse the case for both sides. Justice moreover requires that he assists the jury to reach a logical and reasoned conclusion on the evidence."

Huwa facli li jigu kkritikatisiltiet u frazijiet ta' indirizz, izda, apparti li dawn iridu jigu kkunsidrati fil-kuntest taghhom,l-indirizz ghandu jigi kkunsidrat fit-totalita` tieghu sabiex jigi determinat jekk setax sehh xi "miscarriage of justice".

L-artikolu 507 tal-Kodici Kriminali jiddisponi:

"Minghajr hsaraghall-generalita` ta' l-ahhar artikolu qabel dan, meta tigi offerta xiehda quddiem il-qorti skond dak l-artikolu, il-qorti ghandha, hlief jekk tkun sodisfatta illi x-xiehda jekk ammessa ma taghti ebda lok biex jigi milqugh l-appell, tezercita s-setgha taghha skond dak l-artikolu li tirceviha jekk -

(a) jidher lill-qorti illi x-xiehda x'aktarx tkun kredibbli u kienet tkun ammissibbli fil-kawza fuq kwistjoni li hija l-oggett ta' l-appell; u

(b) il-qorti tkun sodisfatta li ma gietx migjuba fil-kawza, izda li hemm spjegazzjoni ragonevoli ghan-nuqqas biex tigi hekk migjuba."

L-artikoli msemmija gew ezaminati minn din il-Qorti diversament komposta fis-sentenza taghha fl-ismijiet Ir-Repubblika ta' Malta v. Angel sive Angelo Bajada moghtija fil-15 ta' Mejju 1990 (Vol. LXXIV.v.632) u l-parti rilevanti taghha qed tigi citata hawn in extenso:

"Issa kif diga` kellha okkazjoni tosserva din il-Qorti fis-sentenza tagha tal-5 ta' Marzu 1971 in re:Il-Maesta` Taghha r-Reginavs Alfred sive Fredu Frendo u Vincent sive Censu Vella:

'Dawn id-disposizzjonijiet huma modellati kelma b'kelma fuq id-disposizzjonijiet korrispondenti tal-ligi ingliza kif emendata fuq ir-rakkomandazzjonijiet tal-Donovan Committee (Cmnd. 2755 para. 136) li qalu "it would help the Court to avoid or correct any miscarriage of justice if evidence were admitted if there were a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at the trial". L-emenda giet l-ewwel introdotta bil-Criminal Appeal Act 1966 s. 5 u mbagad giet inkorporata fil-Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.23'.

Kif kienet spjegat din il-Qorti kif allura komposta fis-sentenza taghha citata:

'Bl-artikolu 508J (illumart. 506) (korrispondenti ghal disposizzjoni li kienet ga tezisti taht il-Criminal Appeal Act 1907)il-Qorti ghandha diskrezzjoni li tammetti provi godda jekk jidhrilha xieraq u mehtieg jew espedjentifl-interessi tal-gustizzja. Il-principji generali li fuqhom il-Qrati fl-Ingilterra kienu jiggwidawruhhom fl-ezercizzju ta' dik id-diskrezzjoni jistghu jigu rijassunti brevement hekk: "(i) the evidence must be evidence which was not available at the trial; (ii) it must be evidence relevant to the issues; (iii) it must be credible evidence, i.e. evidence well capable of belief; (iv) if the evidence is admitted the Court will, after considering it, go on to consider whether there might have beena reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with the other evidence at the trial" (Cfr. Court of Appeal, Criminal Division: byDr. Thompson & H. W. Walleston, 1969, p. 121 and Archbold, 37th Ed. 890). Biex provi godda kienu jigu ammessi "a very strong case must be made out .." Izda, mill-banda l-ohra, il-Qrati kienu jezercitaw id-diskrezzjoni taghhom "where the interests of justice were plain" u l-Qorti kienet tkun tal-fehma li seta' gie nkors "miscarriage of justice" f'liema kaz il-Qorti "would not allow a technical point to stand in its way" (R. vs Perry and Harvey, 2 Cr. App. R. 89).

Taht l-artikolu 508K (illum 507) invece, hu impost obbligu fuq il-Qorti li tammetti provi godda, jekk ikunu jirrikorru l-kondizzjonijiet preskritti fih. Dawn huma illi a) il-Qorti tkun sodisfatta li hemm spjegazzjoni ragonevoli ghaliex il-prova ma gietx prodotta fil-process; u b) il-Qorti jkun jidhrilha illi l-prova offertahi aktarx kredibbli (cjoe` "well capable of belief") u li kienet tkun ammissibbli fil-process fuq punt rilevanti ghall-appell. Izda l-Qorti tista' tirrifjuta li tammetti l-prova jekk tkun sodisfattali ma taghti ebda lok biex l-appell jigi milqugh ("the Court is satisfied that it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal")'.

Kif kienet ziedet tghid il-Qorti fis-sentenza citata:

'Il-principji huma ragonevolment cari. L-iskop principali ta' l-emendi l-godda fl-Att ingliz -u dan ghandu jkun l-iskop tal-ligi taghna - huwa li, sakemm jista' jkun, ma jithalliex li jkun hemm"miscarriage of justice". L-applikazzjoni prattika tal-principji, pero`, tiddependi necessarjamentmic-cirkostanzi partikolari tal-kaz, u l-Qorti ma tistax tistabbilixxi regoli jew kriterji assolutia priori'.

Ma' dan kollu li kienet qalet din il-Qorti jista' jizdied biss l-artikoli 506 u 507 tal-Kodici Kriminali huma indipendenti minn xulxin fis-sens illi anki jekk ma jkunux jirrikorru r-rekwiziti taht l-artikolu 507, il-Qorti xorta ghandha d-diskrezzjoni li tapplika l-artikolu 506 jekkikun il-kaz. Izda kif jispjega l-Archbold (42nd Ed. Para. 98, p.884):

'Of course, it is common sense that the Court will not receive evidence under subsection (1) if it is satisfied that it "would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal"; for its reception would not be "necessary" in the interests of justice'.

F'dan l-isfond legali hu ovvju li l-kompitu tal-Qorti mhux wiehed facli ghaliex hu essenzjalment marbut ma' l-ezami ta' l-istess mertu ta' l-appell fis-sens li jidhercar li biex tasal ghall-konkluzjoni taccettax jew le t-talba ghall-produzzjoni tax-xhud mitlub tridessenzjalment tidhol fil-qalba tal-mertu ta' l-appell. Dana ghaliex wahda mid-domandi basici li tridtaghmel lilha nfisha u li trid twiegeb ghaliha hija proprju jekk hemmx possibilita` li bl-ammissjoni ta' dik ix-xhieda fl-istadju tal-guri kienx jidhol f'mohh il-gurati dak id-dubju ragonevoli li a bazi tieghu kienu jkunu tenuti johorgu b'verdett ta' mhux hati. Anzi fit-terminu ta' l-artikolu 507 din il-Qorti trid l-ewwel u qabel kollox tara jekk dik ix-xhieda jekk ammessa taghtix lok biex jigi milqugh l-appell".




Programm Operattiv 1
CONvErGE connected eGovernment


Dan is-sit jagħmel użu mill-cookies biex jiggarantilek l-aħjar esperjenza. Jekk ma tbiddilx is-settings tiegħek, nifhmu li qed taċċetta l-użu tal-cookies b’mod awtomatiku. Iktar Informazzjoni