Appeals court says Peralta had prematurely delivered judgement in misappropriation case

The Court of Appeal has overturned a 2014 sentence by former Magistrate Carol Peralta which the retired magistrate had handed down before both prosecution and defence had finished their submissions.

36-year old Fernando Sammut had been accused of having misappropriated €7,787 from Stefan Ferrigi in 2013. Ferriggi had begun delivering his testimony on the 8 April 2014 and was due to continue in a subsequent sitting on the 15 July, where he was also meant to present an explanatory note. 

That sitting was postponed to the 17 July, but on that date, when the sitting was called, Sammut's lawyer had been attending another sitting. Upon emerging from the courtroom, the lawyer had received a phone call from his client, informing him that the case had been decided.

In the lawyer's absence, the court had found Sammut guilty, handed him a one-year sentence, suspended for three, and ordered to repay the sum within six months. Sammut had subsequently tabled an appeal.

Judge Antonio Mizzi noted that the court of first instance had proceeded to judgement without hearing all the prosecution's evidence and had not asked the defence whether it had any evidence to present. Neither were there any court documents indicating that either party had renounced their right to bring evidence.

In fact, the last entry in the case file showed that in the next sitting, which had been scheduled for the 17 July 2014, the parties were to present an explanatory note after which the court would proceed to pass its sentence. The court had indeed passed sentence on that date, but it “is clear that none of the parties had finished exhibiting their evidence.”

As a result of this, Sammut had been denied the option of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and had not been asked whether he had any evidence to bring in his defence, held the court.

The judge therefore cancelled and revoked the sentence of the court of magistrates and sent the acts back to that court to continue hearing evidence and decide the case according to law.