On the 29 September 2025, in the case Police vs Ojo Osuyuwame, presided over by Magistrate Yana Micallef Stafrace, the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of criminal law: An accused person cannot be found guilty of an offence that is not substantiated by the evidence which is presented in court.
The case concerned allegations of dangerous, reckless, and negligent driving involving a vehicle which the prosecution claimed was driven by the accused. It was further alleged that this conduct resulted in injuries to a third party.
According to the Criminal Code, when there are not sufficient reasons for a person to be arrested, the police have the option to issue a citation for that person to appear before the Court of Magistrates to answer the charges brought against them. This process must be carried out in accordance with the law and must meet certain essential criteria.
The summons shall contain a clear designation of the person summoned and a brief statement of the facts of the charge together with such particulars as to time and place as it may be necessary or practicable to give. It shall also contain an intimation that, in default of appearance, the person summoned shall be arrested by warrant of the court and arraigned on such day as maybe stated in the warrant.
In the case at hand, the charge sheet alleged that the accused had been driving a vehicle with a specific number plate. Yet, the evidence produced in Court all pointed towards a vehicle with a different number plate. Therefore the number plate cited in the charge sheet did not align with the facts and evidence established during the case. Nor was it proved that the vehicle indicated in the charge sheet was ever driven or was in any way connected to the accused.
This represents a fundamental defect in the content of the citation, which is the lack of connection between the indicated vehicle in the charge sheet and the defendant. In such circumstances, wherein the key element identifying the car is incorrect, it is impossible for the accused to be found guilty of the charge proffered against him. As a result, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was in fact driving the same vehicle indicated on the charge sheet.
This above principle has been clearly emphasised in various prior judgments by the Maltese courts. The prosecution must prove not only the existence of the offence but also the direct connection to the alleged accused, and where such a link does not exist or is refuted, the accused must be acquitted. The defence made further reference to case law on this point and also on the point that the prosecution cannot request to adjust any errors after having rested their case, as was attempted in this case.
Even if the prosecution claims the error was a typographical one, the necessary adjustment in the charge sheet must be made in a timely manner, and in the absence of this, the accused cannot be found guilty. In this case, the prosecution did not make a request to amend the charge sheet prior to resting their case and therefore the change was not allowed later.
The court here had a situation where the vehicle identified through the testimony and evidence produced in the acts of the case did not tally with the vehicle indicated in the charge sheet. This constitutes a serious material and factual discrepancy, which falls short of the requirement of precision required by law in the details on the citation.
The court held that criminal liability is to always be proven beyond reasonable doubt, a threshold that was not met in this instance. Since no evidence connected the accused to the vehicle mentioned in the charge sheet in question, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
This case showed that it is not sufficient for the prosecution to demonstrate the commission of an offence. It must also prove a clear and direct link between the alleged act and the accused. Where such link is absent, acquittal must follow.
Subsequently, the court acquitted the accused of all charges and discharged him from any guilt or punishment.
The accused was represented by lawyer Gianluca Cappitta.
