A late charge of uninsured driving is time-barred

The Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) held on 27 March 2026 that a charge of driving without third-party insurance, added more than eight months after the offence, was time-barred. Madam Justice Edwina Grima also held that the accreditation rules for forensic laboratories cover DNA profiles and fingerprint data, not drug analysis. The court reduced the appellant's prison term from 32 months to 28 months and dismissed the appeal of his co-accused.

The facts

Il-Pulizija vs V.L. arose from an armed attempt to rob a shop on 13 November 2018. A masked man with a pistol demanded money, a shot was fired in the struggle, and the shopkeeper and two others overpowered him. That man was later convicted on his own admission.

The prosecution charged V.L. and a second man with associating to commit crimes and with complicity in attempted theft aggravated by violence, means and time. V.L. alone was also charged with possessing cocaine, driving without insurance and without a licence, breaching two sets of bail conditions and recidivism.

On 27 September 2024 the Court of Magistrates (Malta), sitting as a Court of Criminal Judicature, found both men guilty. It sentenced V.L. to 32 months' imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for 24 months. It sentenced the second man to 18 months' imprisonment and brought a suspended sentence into effect.

What the court held

The second man argued that the judgment was null because its reasoning and its operative part did not match. The court rejected the argument. Article 382 of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9) requires a judgment to state the facts found, the punishment and the article that creates the offence, and the operative part cited all of those articles.

Both men challenged the first court's view of the evidence. The robber testified that V.L. planned the robbery and drove him to the area. Phone location data placed V.L. nearby, and CCTV footage showed the second man watching the shop while exchanging several calls with V.L. within nine minutes.

The court held that the robber's testimony was admissible, because his conviction was final and he was no longer a co-accused. Forensic tests on the mask and pistol were unnecessary, since he was caught in the act and the items passed through other hands in the struggle. The court found that the evidence formed a strong chain and rejected both appeals on the facts.

V.L. argued that the cocaine analysis was inadmissible because the laboratory was not accredited. The court held that Subsidiary Legislation 460.31, which transposes an EU Council Framework Decision on forensic laboratories, does not reach drug analysis.

It held that “din il-liġi tapplika esklussivament għall-attivitajiet tal-laboratorji li jirriżultaw fi (a) profil ta’ DNA u (b) data dattiloskopika u mhux analiżi ta’ droga” (this law applies only to laboratory work that produces a DNA profile or fingerprint data, and not to drug analysis).

The framework, the court noted, does not affect national rules on judging evidence. An analysis is not worthless merely because the laboratory lacks accreditation, and V.L. had in any case admitted that the substance was his.

The insurance charge was added on 1 August 2019. Article 3(3) of Chapter 104 allows proceedings within six months of the offence, or within three months of the prosecution learning of it and one year of the offence, whichever is longer. The court found that both limits had expired and noted that the police could have established the facts at the start.

The court upheld the bail-condition charges, because prosecuting officers from the earlier cases confirmed on oath that the conditions were in force. It found both sentences within the law, given the men's criminal records, despite positive probation reports.

It declared the insurance charge time-barred and reduced V.L.'s term to 28 months. It replaced the 24-month disqualification with one of one month under article 15 of Chapter 65 and left the rest of the first judgment in force.

Why it matters

Defence lawyers should check the date of any charge added during proceedings against the limits in article 3(3) of Chapter 104; a late insurance charge can be struck out on appeal. A challenge to drug analysis on the ground that the laboratory lacks accreditation will not succeed. The attack must go to the analysis itself.

Where it sits

Prescription extinguishes the criminal action, and special laws may set their own periods; Chapter 104 is one. On review of evidence, the court asked whether the first court could legally and reasonably reach its conclusion. It relied on a line of judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal, in its superior and inferior jurisdiction, from 14 February 1989 to 15 January 2009.

The court treated circumstantial evidence as enough where it forms an unequivocal chain pointing one way. On the requirements of a judgment, it held that article 382 calls for the articles creating the offences, not those on punishment or the concurrence of offences. On accreditation, it decided on Subsidiary Legislation 460.31 and the framework decision alone, without naming other authority.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 27 March 2026, 786/2018/1