Court rules perjury charges time barred

Perjury charges against a man accused of giving false testimony in the compilation of evidence against a man accused of drug dealing have been dismissed as time barred by a court.

Bjorn Dalli was one of the witnesses who testified in criminal proceedings against Brian Barbara in May 2019. In handing down judgment against Barbara, the presiding magistrate had ordered the police to investigate Dalli over possible perjury, after discrepancies were noted in his testimony.

Dalli had confirmed on oath his 2009 police statement in which he claimed to have purchased drugs from Barbara, but once on the witness stand had claimed that he could not remember. The magistrate presiding the case had felt that the witness was trying to mislead the court and exculpate the accused.

But as perjury proceedings against Dalli started before Magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo, the defence raised a plea of prescription, pointing out that the charges were not made under the article of the law specified in the judgment and that the statement had been made in 2009, but the order to investigate the accused for perjury had been given in 2019. Dalli had testified in 2015 and 2020, and this had exceeded the five years which the law provides for such charges to be issued, argued defence lawyer Jason Grima.

The magistrate noted that the punishment attached to the charges actually filed against the accused was imprisonment for up to one year. Therefore, a prescriptive period of five years applied pointed out the court, but had he been charged under the article actually specified in the Barbara judgment, he would have faced imprisonment for between two and five years and the charges covered by a prescriptive period of 10 years.

As things stood, the magistrate said the latest that Dalli should have been charged by was February 2020 and saw that the prosecution had created its report in October 2020, with the accused also collecting his summons in person from the police station that month.

Prescription can only be suspended under special authorisation by the court, or after the court hands down a decision in a separate case.

The magistrate disagreed with the prosecution’s argument that they lacked special authorisation to proceed against the accused, saying that no authorisation is required to take criminal action on perjury and that the police can prosecute ex officio.

“Also because the charges were issued incorrectly, that is under section 108 and not 104 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta, therefore in this case the accusation is time barred and the criminal action against him cannot proceed any further.”

The accused was cleared of all charges.

Superintendent Priscilla Caruana Lee prosecuted. Lawyer Jason Grima was defence counsel.