Unauthenticated photos carry no weight as defence evidence

In Il-Pulizija vs A.M., the Court of Magistrates (Malta), sitting as a Court of Criminal Judicature, on 13 August 2026 jailed a man for nine months for attacking and insulting a woman in a supermarket car park. Magistrate Donatella M. Frendo Dimech rejected a defence that his brother was the man involved. She held that a photograph and a birth document filed without authentication had no probative force.

The facts

On 5 February 2025 the complainant was at a self-checkout when A.M., a stranger to her, spoke to her and then made remarks about her dress and her conduct. In the car park she photographed the number plate of his car. According to her evidence, he stopped his car, blocked her way, opened her car door, grabbed her forearm and pulled her.

A young woman who was with him pulled him away, but he went back to her car a second time. A doctor certified slight injuries. A.M. was charged with attacking her and causing slight bodily harm, and with insulting or threatening her.

What the court held

A.M. testified that he had been at a government identity office that morning, that he flew abroad the same day, and that his brother had been at the supermarket. The court found his account not credible.

The office ticket was issued at 8.31am and did not show that it was his. That left ample time to reach the supermarket, where CCTV first showed him at 9.45am. His boarding pass showed a 3.10pm flight.

The young woman who, he said, was with him at the office did not testify. His brother was first mentioned in May 2026, more than a year after the incident, and was never produced, not even by videoconference.

The magistrate compared the man on the CCTV footage with the accused in court and found no doubt that they were the same person. She held that the defence material failed a basic test: “Kull prova trid neċessarjament tkun waħda ammissibbli skond il-liġi” (every piece of evidence must necessarily be admissible according to law). A photograph filed without authentication, with nothing to show when it was taken, carried no weight.

Nor did a similarity between two men mean one could be mistaken for the other. The court added that a lawyer who follows a client's instructions still bears the duty not to become complicit in producing false evidence. It said that creating false evidence to shift criminal responsibility onto another person fits the offence in article 110(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta).

The court also rejected A.M.'s complaint that the interpreter had not translated faithfully. It had appointed a second interpreter, who listened to the recording and confirmed that the translation was genuine.

On punishment, the court noted that A.M. was not a first-time offender and had earlier convictions for similar offences, showing a pattern of behaviour. It found that instead of showing remorse he had tried to mislead the court. It relied on the principle that violence against the person should, as a rule, lead to immediate imprisonment.

Finding him guilty under articles 17(b) and (h), 31, 214, 215, 221(1) and 339(1)(e), it imposed nine months' imprisonment. Under article 15A it ordered him to pay the complainant €800 in compensation, enforceable as if given in a civil case. It also issued a restraining order under article 382A for three years.

Why it matters

An alibi built on documents needs witnesses and authenticated papers; a ticket that does not show whose it is proves nothing. A defence that names another person as the offender should call that person, even by videoconference, or expect the court to draw the obvious conclusion. Defence lawyers should also weigh the court's warning about complicity before filing material on a client's word alone.

Where it sits

The case turns on the free evaluation of evidence, and on the rule that evidence must be admissible before it can carry weight. On sentence, the magistrate followed a line of authority holding that violence against the person calls, as a rule, for immediate imprisonment.

She cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (15 November 2007, Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono), which adopted the Court of Criminal Appeal (30 July 2004), and the Court of Magistrates (29 September 2010, Magistrate Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera). She also cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (3 February 2005), a bench of three presided over by Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano.

On the purposes of punishment she relied on the Court of Magistrates (14 February 2013, Magistrate Doreen Clarke) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (13 November 2009, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano), which quoted the English Court of Appeal (1974) on courts showing society's abhorrence of particular crimes through their sentences.

Source

Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature, 4117/2025, 13 August 2026: 4117/2025