24/01/1989

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (INFERIOR)

HARDING HUGH, HERRERA JOSEPH A., AGIUS CARMEL A.

REPUBLIC OF MALTA vs RAVI RAMANI

N/A

-

N/A

AMENDMENT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - CONCURRENT OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS - CONVERSIONS OF FINE (MULTA) INTI IMPRISONMENT - CORROBORATION - DANGEROUS DRUGS ORDINANCE - EVIDENCE OF ACCOMPLICE

The general rule is that the testimony of one witness, if believed by those who have to judge of thefacts, is sufficient to constitute proof thereof. To this rule sections 639(3) of Cap.9 provides an exception. But section 639(3) presupposes two very important requisites for its application namely, that the accomplice must be the only witness against the accused, and that his evidence is not sufficiently corroborated by other circumstances. In matters of procedures the general rule is thatthe law to be applied is always that in force at the time of the trail, notwithstanding that at th time of the commission of the offence the mode of proceeding may have been governed by a different law, and irrespective of whether such former law was more or less favourable to the accused. When several offences, which taken together do not constitute an aggravated crime, are designed for the commission of another offence, whether aggravated or simple, the punishment for the graver offence shallbe applied. The maximum of three years established by section 17(g) of Cap. 9 in case of conversation of a fine (multa) is only applicable in the case of multiplicity of fines.