Court nullifies woman’s prison term conviction, orders retrial over procedural irregularities

Josianne Grech, who was originally convicted by the Court of Magistrates for breaching a protection order and insulting or threatening two individuals during an incident at Aġenzija Appoġġ on 30 December 2020, has had her previous sentence revoked on appeal and will have her case heard again.

Grech was sentenced to one year of effective imprisonment, and a five-year protection order was issued in favour of the alleged victims.
She later appealed the judgment, arguing that her guilty plea had not been validly received and that procedural irregularities undermined her right to a fair hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld her arguments, ruling that her plea was invalid and that the original sentence must be annulled.

Grech initially admitted to the charges but she later argued that her admission occurred under emotional distress and without proper legal guidance. At the time, she was struggling with drug addiction, mental health difficulties and emotional distress linked to custody issues involving her daughter. 

Grech’s appeal also raised several significant procedural concerns. She first claimed that the prosecution had not formally closed its evidence, yet the Court ordered the defence to present all of its evidence in a single sitting.This created an imbalance between the parties, contrary to the principle of equality of arms.

Another significant issue  raised on appeal concerned the alleged protection order that Grech was accused of breaching. Although the charge sheet stated that the protection order had been issued on 29 October 2019, the Court of Criminal Appeal observed that no copy of such an order was ever presented in the case file. The prosecution did not produce the decree, nor did the first court verify its existence before accepting Grech’s guilty plea.

Since a breach of a protection order is a distinct offence which requires strict proof of the existence and terms of the order, the absence of this evidence rendered the charge legally unsustainable. This failure further reinforced the conclusion that the original conviction could not stand.

On 5 June 2023, the court informed the accused that the case had already been adjourned for her evidence and that no further adjournment would be granted. Because of this, the accused panicked and suddenly wanted to decide immediately whether she would give testimony, or plead guilty to the charges. Under these circumstances, she was unable to properly present her evidence. Consequently, the accused quickly and hastily decided to register a guilty plea.

Most importantly, when Grech chose to plead guilty, the court failed to follow the necessary procedural requirements. Before a court accepts a guilty plea, it must warn the accused clearly and solemnly of the legal consequences of pleading guilty and allow the accused time to reconsider before the plea is confirmed. These safeguards ensure that a guilty plea is voluntary, informed, and conscious of its consequences. Grech’s particular sitting showed that no such warning was given  and no reconsideration time was offered. Therefore, her guilty plea was legally invalid.

The appeals court held that the guilty plea had been irregularly received and was therefore invalid. As a result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the First Court were null and had no legal effect. The Court of Criminal Appeal returned the case to the Magistrates’ Court and ordered that proceedings immediately resume from the stage before the invalid guilty plea.