Romanian appeals jury sentence for 2012 Paceville death

The lawyer representing Romanian man Antonel Dobre has filed an appeal against his seven-year sentence, claiming the judge’s summing up did not satisfy the requirements laid down in the law, and requesting the court of appeal to either overturn the guilty verdict or, failing that, reform the sentence.

Late last month, a jury had found Dobre guilty, by eight votes to one, of causing grievous bodily harm which led to the death of Sudanese man Osama Al Shazliay Saleh during a 2012 altercation outside a club in Paceville.

Investigations had established that Saleh had elbowed Dobre’s friend in the face while they were inside the club. Some minutes later, Dobre confronted Saleh on St. Rita’s steps and punched the victim, causing him to fall and hit his head on the ground.

Saleh’s cause of death, three days hence, was established to be caused by the cranial fractures he suffered as a result.

The jury had not accepted the defence’s argument that Dobre’s punishment was to be attenuated by the fact that the act was excusable, due to it being provoked by a crime against the person.  A verdict of seven jurors to two also found him guilty of breaching the peace.

In the appeal application, Dobre’s lawyer Roberto Montalto argued that in his summing up, the judge had not explained, nor attempted to explain, the fact that bodily harm is excusable when provoked by a crime against the person punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment.

Without this explanation, the jurors “had been left in absolute ignorance as to how they were to weigh up and evaluate the provocation by the victim” and could not determine which form of this legal defence applied.

The application goes on to say that, in addition to this, the judge had commented in open court that the argument of provocation was of little import and that the defence had not given it much weight. Montalto describes the comment as out of place and erroneous.

The application reads that not only were all the elements of legitimate self-defence present, but that the punishment meted out was excessive and did not take into account the extensive submissions by the defence.

He described the events as “unfortunate and accidental,” which merited the imposition of the minimum punishment available at law, if not a punishment under the minimum – as is applicable in special cases.