Hiding evidence of your own crime is not a separate offence

The Court of Criminal Appeal, sitting in its inferior jurisdiction, decided Il-Pulizija vs R.R. on 5 June 2026. Madam Justice Edwina Grima held that a person cannot be guilty of suppressing the evidence of an offence he committed himself, and acquitted the appellant of that charge. The court kept the drug, knife and resistance findings but replaced a year in prison with a probation order under article 22(9a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

The facts

In June 2012 police officers entered a bar the appellant ran and identified themselves. When he realised they were about to search him, he reached for his pocket, struggled with the officers, dragged them about four metres and slightly injured a constable. A pouch holding 21 sachets of cocaine of almost identical weight was found on the floor where the struggle ended.

A scale with traces of the same drug and a flick knife were found in a car whose keys he held. On 11 May 2021 the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature found him guilty of aggravated possession, carrying a knife without a licence, resisting and slightly injuring police officers, disobeying lawful orders and attempting to suppress evidence. It sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment and a €1,300 fine.

What the court held

The appellant argued that the drug analysis was inadmissible because the laboratory was not accredited to the EN ISO/IEC 17025 standard. The court held that Framework Decision 2009/905/JHA and S.L. 460.31 cover laboratory work producing DNA profiles and fingerprint data, not drug analysis. The regulations came into force in 2016, after the investigation, and regulation 8(2) preserves the validity of earlier results.

The court added that a lack of accreditation does not automatically strip evidence of its value.

On aggravated possession under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 101 of the Laws of Malta), the appellant submitted that 3.83 grams was compatible with personal use and that intent to supply had to be proved. The court held that the prosecution must prove the possession was not for the offender's exclusive use: "il-ligi taghna mkien ma’ tispecifika illi l-pussess irid ikun wiehed bl-intenzjoni ta’ spaċċ" (our law nowhere specifies that possession must be with intent to supply).

The 21 sachets of almost equal weight and the scale with drug traces were enough. The court said the appellant's reading relied on English law, which places a heavier burden on the prosecution than Maltese law does.

Article 6 of the Arms Act (Chapter 480) bars carrying a knife outside premises without a licence from the Commissioner of Police. Article 7 exempts a knife with a blade of no more than eight centimetres carried for ordinary use. The court examined the knife and found an eight-centimetre blade, but the appellant gave no lawful use and denied it was his, so the exemption could not apply.

The court found that the struggle was a deliberate attempt to stop the search, not a startled reaction, and left the resistance and disobedience findings in place. It noted that the injury charge falls under articles 221 and 222(c) of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9), not article 95.

The charge of suppressing evidence under article 111(2) of the Criminal Code failed. The court held that the offence does not reach the person who committed the principal offence, whose act is a continuation of that offence: "bl-ebda tiġbid tal-imaġinazzjoni ma jista’ jitqies li qed jiffavoreġġa lilu nnifsu" (by no stretch of the imagination can he be considered to be aiding himself).

On penalty, the appellant invoked article 22(9a), added by Act VII of 2025. It lets a court place a first offender on probation instead of prison where the sentence would not exceed two years. The court must weigh rehabilitation, change in lifestyle and behaviour, and the nature, amount and purity of the substance.

The Attorney General left the question to the court, which found the conditions met. The one-year sentence was within the limit, a probation report showed he no longer used drugs and had work and family support, and the cocaine weighed 3.83 grams at 30% purity. He had no earlier drug conviction.

The court placed him on probation for three years under article 7 of the Probation Act (Chapter 446), with treatment conditions, and kept the €1,300 fine.

Why it matters

Defence lawyers should not expect an accreditation challenge to exclude a drug analysis in a case of this age, or argue that the prosecution must prove intent to supply. An accused who throws away drugs during a search cannot also be convicted under article 111(2) for that act.

The judgment also shows the court applying article 22(9a) at the appeal stage to a 2012 offence, after ordering a social inquiry report.

Where it sits

The possession point applies the distinction in Chapter 101 between simple possession and possession not for the offender's exclusive use. The court quoted a judgment of 2 September 1999, which held that holding a drug one does not intend to consume is already possession not for exclusive use.

The ruling on article 111(2) follows the doctrine of favoreggiamento, the aiding of an offender after the fact. The court drew it from the standard Maltese criminal law notes and from the Italian heading of the offence, which presupposes help given to someone else.

On accreditation the court referred to its own earlier decisions without naming them. On probation it decided on the text of article 22(9a) alone.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 299/2012/1, 5 June 2026.