Father and teenage sons on drug charges after 100 sachets of illegal substances found in their car

Three members of the same family have been remanded in custody after over 100 sachets suspected to contain various illegal drugs were found in their car when it was stopped by police.

The 39-year-old father and his two sons, aged 19 and 17, had been stopped yesterday while driving in their home town of Bormla. Police Inspectors Alfredo Mangion and Mark Cremona explained that the Drugs Squad and the Community police had received a number of reports about the father selling drugs in Bormla and had obtained a warrant for his arrest two days ago.

He was stopped on Thursday while behind the wheel of a Toyota Vitz, in the company of his two teenage sons. 80 sachets of suspected cocaine were discovered in the car, together with 16 sachets of suspected heroin and 5 bags of suspected cannabis. All three of the car’s occupants were arrested.

The defendants, whose names cannot be published, pleaded not guilty to possession of the substances in circumstances indicating they were not solely for their personal consumption.

In reply to a question from the defence, Inspector Mangion confirmed that the underage defendant’s mother had also been informed upon the arrest of her son and that the necessary warrants and formalities had all been obtained and followed.

Lawyer Franco Debono, assisting the defendants together with lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Mark Mifsud Cutajar, requested bail. Inspector Mangion objected, pointing out that there were “nearly 100 sachets of drugs,” adding that the drugs were intended to be distributed amongst society. There was a strong risk of further crimes being committed should the defendants be released from arrest.

Debono argued that in spite of this, they had not been charged with trafficking, which he said, meant that the Attorney General had already decided to have the care decided by the Court of Magistrates.

The total weight of the drugs was around 20g, said the lawyer, arguing that the intention behind the Drug (Treatment not Imprisonment) Act was to recommend treatment over incarceration when guilt is confirmed. “By analogy, detention is much less fitting before guilt is confirmed and innocence is presumed,” Debono told the court.

Mifsud Cutajar reminded the court that it could grant bail to certain defendants and not to others, pointing out that the warrant had only been issued for the father’s arrest and that his sons had “happened to be in the car with him.” 

He asked the court to impose a ban on the publication of the minor’s name,  noting that this must necessarily also include the names of the others.

Defence lawyer Arthur Azzopardi submitted that the prosecution’s arguments seemed to be trying to instil “a fear of the bogeyman,” by referring to possible future crimes. “The risk of breaking the law is one which affects every person alive today. Not even ECHR accepts this as a valid ground for refusing bail. Claimed potential risk must be substantiated with relevant evidence.”

It was also pointed out that in any case, the defendants would not be competent or compellable witnesses against each other, being both co-accused and close family members.

The court however, denied bail at this stage, ruling that it felt the prosecution’s arguments to be valid in the circumstances. The defendants did not provide the court with peace of mind that they could fulfil the bail conditions which the court would have otherwise imposed, amongst them that of not committing further crimes whilst on bail, said the magistrate.