Cocaine offender spared jail after successful rehabilitation

Accused has his conviction for aggravated cocaine possession confirmed by Criminal Court of Appeal, but his 14-month effective prison sentence is revoked and replaced with a suspended term after the court recognised his recovery

Court building in Valletta (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)
Court building in Valletta (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)

The Criminal Court of Appeal on Friday partially accepted the appeal filed by Terence Micallef over cocaine possession charges.

The court confirmed Micallef’s guilt for the aggravated possession of cocaine but mitigated the penalty due to his successful completion of a rehabilitation programme.

Micallef was originally charged concerning events on 13 August 2015, and the preceding months, in Birżebbuġia. The initial 2022 decision, found him guilty of the first charge - possessing cocaine in circumstances showing it was not for his exclusive use.

He was found not guilty of supplying cocaine and being a recidivist. The original sentence was fourteen months effective imprisonment.

In his appeal filed on 18 November 2022, Micallef requested either a finding of simple possession instead of aggravated possession or, alternatively, a variation of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal rejected the first ground of appeal, confirming the original finding of guilt for aggravated possession. The court noted that the burden of proof lay with Micallef to show the drug was for personal use, but he did not testify.

The evidence presented by the prosecution, which convinced the court, included cash and paraphernalia, drug packaging, and coded communication. During a search of Micallef’s Birżebbuġa residence, €645 in cash was found in the kitchen.

A digital scale was found hidden behind a framed picture in the living room, alongside a burned spoon, blades, new bags with cut corners, and a black box. Swabs taken from the scale, spoon, and blades all showed traces of cocaine.

The cocaine, totalling 7.84g with approximately 20% purity, was found divided into pieces: thirteen pieces in one bag and eighteen pieces in a second bag, both hidden behind the picture. The court noted while the drug was not individually packaged, the presence of empty bags with cut corners containing cocaine traces supported the conclusion that it was intended for distribution.

Three mobile phones were found with the court observing many contacts were listed using nicknames such as "Ic-Cubu," "Tal-Bokser," and "Bravo," offering anonymity.

Furthermore, the phones contained messages seeking appointments and asking for the delivery of unspecified ‘things’. On the day of the arrest, Micallef received no less than eighteen persistent messages in the span of one hour from a person named "Nok" asking for his location and if they would meet.

Considering the cash, scale, packaging materials, and coded messages, the court was morally convinced the drug was not for Micallef’s personal use, leading to the denial of the first appeal ground.

The court then addressed the second appeal ground concerning the excessiveness of the sentence, utilising its statutory function as a Drug Court under Article 8 of Chapter 537.

Micallef was referred to the Rehabilitation Board of Persons Caught with Drugs, which reported on 9 May 2025 that it was satisfied with his rehabilitation process and had closed the case successfully.

Applying Article 8(7) of the Drug Dependence (Treatment not Imprisonment) Act, the court has the power to waive the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment or the exclusion of suspended imprisonment if the court is satisfied that the offence was principally attributable to the accused’s dependence on drugs.

Given Micallef’s history of drug abuse and his successful cooperation in the programme, the court accepted the crime was principally attributable to his drug dependence.

The court therefore revoked the original 14-month effective prison sentence and substituted it with a 14-month term of imprisonment, suspended for a period of two years.

The court also confirmed the order for Micallef to pay €890.90 in expert fees within eighteen months. The court ordered that after the two-year suspended period has passed, the offence shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of issuing a Certificate of Conduct.

Judge Edwina Grima presided over the case.

Micallef was represented by lawyers Joe Giglio and Michaela Giglio.