Court orders retrial of 'VRT cheat' who admitted to the wrong charges

A VRT cheat, who had been jailed for three years last February after pleading guilty to having traded in influence to get a VRT tester to approve an un-roadworthy vehicle for its road license is to have a retrial, after it emerged that he had been charged with the wrong offence.

Last January, Godfrey Formosa was charged with trading in influence, knowingly making use of falsified documents, making a false declaration to a public authority, falsifying a VRT certificate and driving a car without a road license.

Formosa, who was not assisted by a lawyer, pleaded guilty and was jailed for three years.

He engaged lawyer Stefano Filletti a month later and an appeal was filed.

The lawyer argued that when a person accused is not assisted it is incumbent on the court to ensure that the arrest is valid and that the charges are backed up by evidence.

The court must always weigh up the information from the testimony of the police officers against the facts established from the accused’s statement in an effort to ensure that the charges are legally correct and have a basis at law.

Judge Edwina Grima, presiding the Court of Appeal, held that in this case, the accused could never have been found guilty of trading in influence. It observed that as he was giving his statement to the police, he was asked questions relating to a completely different offence to that of trading in influence.

The judge noted that the man’s confession had been for behavior that did not amount to trading in influence, but the lesser offence of bribery.

“The offence of bribery involves paying someone to do something he should do or not to do something he should do and is eligible for a suspended sentence” Filleti explained, “but trading in influence is more serious because it is paying a third party to exert pressure on someone else to perform or omit to perform an action.

The latter offence is punishable by a minimum of three years imprisonment.”

The sentence he received was also excessive, was argued, because it should have been reduced due to his cooperation and early admission.

The Court of Appeal upheld the defence submissions, saying the court “could not close its eyes to this shortcomings as if it did not exist.” Formosa’s sentence was declared null and a retrial was ordered.