19/04/2007

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (SUPERIOR)

DE GAETANO VINCENT, FILLETTI JOSEPH A., SCICLUNA DAVID

IR-REPUBBLIKA TA' MALTA vs KHALED ALI M MUSBAH

N/A

FINAL JUDGEMENT

N/A

META VERDETT JISTA JITQIES BHALA UNSAFE U UNSATISFACTORY

Effettivament, kif dejjem inghad, din il-Qorti ma tinvadix it-territorju li l-ligi tirrizerva ghall-gurati hlief meta l-verdett minnhom milhuq ikun manifestament zbaljat fis-sens li ebda gurija, ben indirizzata, ma setghet legalment u ragonevolment tasal ghalih. Jigifieri jrid ikun in kontradizzjonimanifesta ghal dak kollu li jirrizulta mill-process b'mod illi ma hemmx mod iehor hlief li l-verdett milhuq jigi eskluz bhala infondat .

F'Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2001 naqraw ukoll (para. D22.15 pagna 1622):

“The case of Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267 continues to provide guidance on how the word ‘unsafe' should be interpreted in determining a criminal appeal. In that case, Lord Widgery CJ explained that if the overall feel of a case left the court with a ‘lurking doubt' as to whether an injustice may have been done, then a conviction will be quashed, notwithstanding that the trial was error-free. Lord Widgery said (at p. 271 C-G):

‘[This is] a case in which every issuewas before the jury and in which the jury was properly instructed, and, accordingly, a case in whichthis court will be very reluctant indeed to intervene. It has been said over and over again throughout the years that this court must recognise the advantage which a jury has in seeing and hearing the witnesses, and if all the material was before the jury and the summing-up was impeccable, this court should not lightly interfere. Indeed, until the passing of the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 [which somewhat widened the court's powers to quash a conviction] it was almost unheard of for this court tointerfere in such a case.

However, now our powers are somewhat different, and we are indeed charged to allow an appeal against conviction if we think that the verdict of the jury should be setaside on the ground that under all the circumstances of the case it is unsafe or unsatisfactory. That means that in cases of this kind the court must in the end ask itself a subjective question, whether we are content to let the matter stand as it is, or whether there is not some lurking doubt in our minds which makes us wonder whether an injustice has been done. This is a reaction which may not be based strictly on the evidence as such; it is a reaction which can be produced by the general feelof the case as the court experiences it'.''

Fis-sentenza moghtija mill-Qorti ta' l-Appell Kriminali fl-ismijiet Ir-Repubblika ta' Malta vs Ivan Gatt fl-1 ta' Dicembru 1994, intqal hekk:

“Fi kliem iehor, l-ezercizzju ta' din il-Qorti fil-kaz prezenti u f'kull kaz iehor fejn l-appell ikun bazat fuq apprezzament tal-provi, huwa li tezamina l-provi dedotti f'dan il-kaz, tara jekk, ankijekk kien hemm versjonijiet kontradittorji - kif normalment ikun hemm - xi wahda minnhom setghetx liberament u serenament tigi emmnuta minghajr ma jigi vjolat il-principju li d-dubju ghandu jmur favur l-akkuzat, u jekk tali versjoni setghet tigi emmnuta w evidentement giet emmnuta, il-funzjoni, anzi d-dover ta' din il-Qorti huwa li tirrispetta dik id-diskrezzjoni u dak l-apprezzament."

Minn ezami tal-atti processwali jirrizulta illi l-kwistjonijiet kollha rilevanti ta' apprezzament ta' fatt gew posti ghall-konsiderazzjoni tal-gurati li kienu liberi l-hin kollu, u gew diretti f'dan is-sens mill-Imhallef li ppresjeda l-guri, illi jivvalutaw huma l-provi.