Court dismisses 'surreal' case against Swede charged with 2014 Paceville assault on policeman

Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit: ‘Had the police officers involved in the case handled the situation correctly, then this incident would not have happened’

A court has described as “surreal and without any explanation,” assault charges which had been filed against a Swedish man who was arrested in 2014 after being struck by the wing mirror of a passing police van in Paceville.

Gaming software tester Mikko Sebenius was arrested in Paceville at 5am on the May 1 2014, having finished his shift at 1am and gone out for an after-work beer.

Whilst walking in Elia Zammit Street, Sebenius had been hit in the head by the wing mirror of a passing police van and was then arrested.

PC Dirk Pace had testified that that the Swede had sworn at the officer driving the van after being struck and that he, together with another officer who were patrolling nearby, had asked the accused for his passport.

After being told that the accused was not in the habit of carrying his passport on his person when out drinking, a second officer had told Sebenius to accompany them to the van “to see whether there were any damages.”

The accused had then allegedly made a run for it, before abruptly reversing his direction, charging at the officers and colliding with Pace, the two of them ending up in a heap on the pavement.

The 28-year old was subsequently charged with assaulting a police officer during the course of his duties, slightly injuring PC Dirk Pace and threatening PC Pace to intimidate him whilst carrying out his duties.

He was also charged with breaching the peace, disobeying police instructions, public drunkenness and swearing in public.

Magistrate Stafrace Zammit quoted Professor Sir Anthony Mamo as citing “active disobedience” as a requisite for the offence of violently resisting arrest.

Witness testimony did not corroborate the prosecution's account and some had vouched for the accused, the court noted.

The magistrate observed that the police officer who had been driving the van had testified to having asked the accused whether he was OK but had not received a response. “Had the accused uttered the words 'fuck you', this police officer would surely have noticed,” the magistrate said.

Sebenius himself had testified, giving a rather different account to that tendered by the police officer. He had been eating a post-clubbing snack whilst on his way home. After being struck by the wing mirror, he had shouted “watch out” and then walked to a cab stand and sat down on a step to finish eating.

It was at that time that four police officers came up to him, demanding an apology, he said. Asked what for, the officers had thrown his food to the floor and hit him in the face. He claimed to have felt “very frightened” and had tried to stand up, asking once again what it was that he should be sorry for.

The non-answer came in the form of an officer grabbing him from behind and putting him in a headlock. He was then dragged towards Burger Kind, all the while being told to apologise.

The Swede had managed to wriggle free from the chokehold and ran away from the officers, only to find other policemen blocking his path. As he changed direction, he said, he accidentally ran into the officer chasing him.

Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit was not impressed by the officers' actions. “Had the police officers involved in the case ... handled the situation correctly, then this incident would not have happened,” the court observed.

It was clear, and had been confirmed by other officers, that the insult had never been uttered and the mirror had not been struck intentionally the court held.

It is the duty of a police officer to exercise their authority with regards to the rights of others respectfully, the magistrate added, as while it is true that they are to be respected, “they should not assume that the people they stop are criminals who want to harm them.”

“The accused was faced with something surreal and without any explanation and this is why he got frightened and decided to escape.”

The court was of the opinion that no criminal intent had been proven on the part of Sebenius and acquitted him.

Lawyers Giannella De Marco and Gianluca Caruana Curran appeared for Sebenius.