Court throws out appeal against sentence for near-fatal slapping

A factory worker who slapped his colleague and caused him potentially life-threatening injuries after a workplace argument has lost an appeal against his sentence.

Leonardo Balzan, 59, had been handed an 8 month jail term, suspended for 15 months last June, when he was convicted of involuntary grievous bodily harm over a 2013 incident at the Polidano Group's Hal Farrug factory.

During an argument with his foreman, Balzan had lashed out at a colleague Vincenzo Micallef for calling him selfish, slapping him in the face and knocking him off balance. Micallef suffered life-threatening head injuries from his subsequent impact with the floor and had spent time in intensive care as a result.

Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit found Balzan guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and handed him an 8 month prison sentence, suspended for 15 months, also condemning him to pay €1,080 in court expenses.

Balzan filed an appeal, arguing the first court had wrongly interpreted the facts and that the punishment was excessive. His action had merely been a slap, he had argued and had not intended or forseen Micallef losing his balance and falling over, much less the life-threatening injury.

Judge Edwina Grima, presiding the Court of Criminal Appeal noted that the generic intent to cause harm was all that was required for a conviction on that charge. The action must be voluntary and wilful, but no specific intention to cause grievous bodily harm was necessary.

Balzan had argued that it was the Micallef who had interfered in the argument, which was not about him. “Not only did Micallef stick his nose in other people's business, but then started insulting the appellant and calling him selfish in front of all his other colleagues.”

Madame Justice Grima, observed that the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal was to refrain from varying the opinion of the first court, unless there was evidence of a mistake of law or of fact.

The moment that the appellant reacted violently to the insult he certainly could have foreseen that his actions would cause some sort of harm, even if minimal.

Claiming that he had been provoked was not an, held the judge, ruling that the accused accused had overstepped the limits of proper behaviour by replying to a verbal insult with a physical act.

Also pointing out that Balzan's argument of excessive punishment was invalid because the sentence he received had fallen squarely within the parameters laid down by law and, in fact, tended towards the minimum, the court rejected the appeal.