Prosecutorial error sees man cleared of bail breach

An appeals court has overturned a man’s conviction for breaching his bail conditions, after noting that a mistake by the prosecution meant that it had only exhibited a copy of his bail conditions after declaring its evidence closed.

Jason Caruana, 44, of Floriana had been on bail for drug offences dating back to 2016 when he was taken into custody after being found at a different address than that specified in his bail decree, outside his designated curfew hours.

Caruana had been arrested alongside Albanian national Daniel Muka, in a dramatic police raid at a dilapidated Floriana residence in August 2020, in connection with the double murder of Christian Pandolfino and his partner Ivor Maciejowski in Sliema.

Caruana had been released, only to be re-arrested for allegedly breaching bail conditions on September 7, when he was found outside at around 10:20pm, beyond his court-imposed curfew.

In October 2020, the court of Magistrates had found him guilty of breaching the bail decree and ordered his rearrest, together with the forfeiture of his €4000 bail guarantee. Caruana subsequently filed an appeal, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the intentional element of the crime, that the transgression was a minor one and that the punishment inflicted was excessive.

Mr. Justice Aaron Bugeja, presiding the court of Criminal Appeal, observed that the prosecution had initially only exhibited a copy of the original bail decree and had omitted to present the court with a subsequent decree, which had amended Caruana’s bail conditions and extended his curfew.

The judge noted that it was only on September 28 2020, days after the third sitting in Caruana’s compilation of evidence, that the updated conditions were exhibited. But by that time the prosecution had already declared its evidence closed.

Defence lawyers Franco Debono and Francesca Zarb zeroed in on this fact, protesting with the court during a sitting on 29 September 2020, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the best evidence in its possession pointing to the guilt of the accused. The lawyers insisted that prosecution had therefore failed to prove that the decree in question had still been in force at the moment of commission of the alleged crime.

The judge agreed, pointing out that in criminal proceedings, guilt had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. “The best evidence is undoubtedly the full decree,” Mr. Justice Bugeja ruled, adding that the prosecution ought not to have made such a mistake in the first place, noting that the prosecution had made two declarations to the effect that its evidence was closed.

“This Court sees that this was not procedurally correct. Therefore, the defence’s complaint merits being upheld. This Court and the Court of Magistrates before it, cannot assume anything. It is up to the prosecution to show, with admissible evidence, in the stage intended for the production of its evidence, that the fact occurred whilst there were bail conditions binding the accused, and also prove that those conditions were in force through the best evidence, which is the full legal copy of the same decree – including amendments or additions which could have taken place after the promulgation of the initial bail decree.”

As a result, Caruana was declared innocent of all charges and cleared of all punishment in this regard.