Appeals Court reverses magistrate's refusal to allow video testimony due to 'financial constraints'

The Court of Criminal Appeal, has overturned a previous ruling by a lower court and ordered that two witnesses in a traffic incident case be allowed to testify via video-link after they were first refused the chance to do so due to "financial constraints"

The decision comes after the Magistrates' Court had rejected a request from the prosecution to hear the witnesses remotely, arguing that financial constraints did not justify such an arrangement—an argument the Appeals Court found unconvincing.

The case involves 53-year-old Maktum Hasan Sourav, who was charged in connection with an incident that occurred on 6 April 2023 in Triq il-Mina ta’ Ħal Kirkop. Sourav was accused of driving without a valid license and of operating the vehicle carelessly, resulting in slight injuries to Adrian Pace and his wife, Michelle Leanne Pace.

On 17 March 2025, the Magistrates’ Court acquitted Sourav after it failed to hear testimony from the two injured parties. The couple, who reside outside Malta, had informed the prosecution that they were unable to travel to the island for financial reasons.

On 10 May, 2024, the prosecution filed an application requesting that the witnesses be allowed to testify remotely via video-link. However, the court dismissed the request on the same day, stating that “financial limitations” did not constitute a valid reason for video testimony.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal criticised the lower court’s reasoning, noting that it could have reached a different decision, especially considering it delayed issuing its judgment for 10 months after the hearing of the request. 

Citing Article 647A of the Criminal Code, which allows for testimony via video-link in cases where physical presence in court is not possible, the Appeals Court upheld the Attorney General's first ground of appeal. It revoked the original decision and ordered that proceedings resume from the precise point where the request for remote testimony was denied.

As a result, the case against Maktum Hasan Sourav will now continue before the Magistrates’ Court, allowing for the remote testimony of the two witnesses so that the judicial process can proceed.

The sitting was presided by Judge Neville Camilleri.