Punishment revoked for man found asleep and disoriented in car after prosecution error

A €2000 fine and licence suspension levied on a man who police had found asleep in his car, which had crashed into a tree, have been revoked on appeal due to lack of evidence that he had been drink-driving.

In February last year, a Court of Magistrates had found 52-year-old John Said guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and refusing to submit to a breathalyser test. Police were acting on a report of a crashed car blocking Triq il-Wileg, in St. Paul’s Bay earlier that month. 

Officers had found Said asleep behind the steering wheel of the damaged vehicle. After being woken up, the man was described as disoriented and unable to explain how he had ended up in St. Paul’s Bay, as he had been driving home to Bahar ic-Caghaq from Valletta that night.

After taking the key out of the car’s ignition, the police called a medical team to assist, but Said refused to be taken to hospital. The police officers decided to carry out a breathalyser test on the man, who they described as disoriented, mixing up his words and losing his balance, but Said had once again refused, even after being told that this would be used against him in court. 

Although he was subsequently charged with negligent driving, reckless driving and dangerous driving, as well as with driving while drunk and refusing to give a breath sample, the Court of Magistrates had only found him guilty of the last two offences. Said was fined €2000 and disqualified from driving for 6 months.

An appeal was then filed by Said’s lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Kris Busietta, arguing that the court had not interpreted the evidence correctly. Although Said had been found asleep in the driver’s seat, the lawyers argued, the car’s engine was not running and there was no evidence to show that the vehicle was being driven at the time. Supporting this argument was the fact that the Court of Magistrates had acquitted him of driving negligently, recklessly or dangerously due to lack of evidence, they said. 

Once the appellant had not been controlling a moving vehicle when the police approached his car, it could not be said that he was driving at all, much less while drunk, argued the lawyers.

Madame Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera agreed with the defence, ruling that case law had established the necessity of proving either the fact that the defendant was driving, tried to drive or was about to drive the vehicle in such cases. None of these featured in the case at hand, said the judge, apart from the fact that Said had been asleep in the driver’s seat of the car, blocking the road.

Pieces of circumstantial evidence had to be unequivocal and must all indicate the same outcome, noted the court, concluding that in this case, it did not believe that the defendant could lawfully be found guilty of the two offences which he had been convicted of.

Said was acquitted of all charges.