Man cleared of cocaine possession after court finds evidence handling ‘unclear and inconsistent’

A 54-year-old man has been acquitted of cocaine possession after court ruled that the police failed to prove the drugs found in his car actually belonged to him, highlighting serious inconsistencies in how the evidence was collected and presented in court

James Farrugia, from St Paul’s Bay, who works in the Paceville security industry, had been stopped by anti-drug police in the Baystreet car park on 3 December 2016.

Officers testified they recovered a Dunhill cigarette packet from the front passenger seat, allegedly containing five small sachets of white powder later confirmed to be cocaine.

But the court noted that the police officers themselves gave conflicting accounts about the packaging of the drugs, with some insisting the sachets were found inside a Dunhill packet, while the forensic expert was handed a packet of Vogue cigarettes placed inside a Dunhill one.

No officer recalled finding a Vogue packet at the scene.

The court stressed that this discrepancy raised doubts about whether the exhibit analysed in the lab was the same one allegedly found inside the car.

Farrugia consistently denied ownership of the drug packets, insisting that someone with a grudge had planted them in his vehicle. To support this claim, the defence requested a court-appointed locksmith expert.

That expert testified that Farrugia’s 40-year-old Datsun had a worn driver-side lock that could be opened with a simple flathead screwdriver or any similar object, while the passenger door lock was old but original. He found no signs that the locks had ever been replaced after the 2016 incident, confirming that the car could easily have been accessed by anyone.

The court also reviewed several police reports documenting past disputes involving the accused, including threats he had received and friction with neighbours, supporting the possibility of hostility from third parties.

A search of Farrugia’s home turned up no scales, cash, spoons, or other drug-related tools, which the court said did not prove innocence by itself but strengthened the defence’s narrative when viewed alongside the rest of the evidence.

An ex-police sergeant who had worked in St Julian’s also testified that Farrugia often acted as an informal police collaborator, passing on information to officers during nightlife patrols, another point the defence raised to explain why he might have enemies.

The court remarked that Farrugia had driven from St Paul’s Bay to Baystreet without ever noticing the “suspicious” packet on the passenger seat, but accepted his explanation that the Dunhill packet looked identical to the brand he smoked, and therefore did not stand out to him.

The court ultimately held that the prosecution failed to eliminate the reasonable possibility that someone else had entered the car and left the packet there.

Given the inconsistencies in the evidence and the low threshold of proof required for the defence, probability, not certainty, the court ruled that the prosecution did not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Farrugia was cleared of all charges.

Magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo presided over the case.

Lawyers Joe Giglio and Michaela Giglio assisted the accused.