Drunken fall onto hotel canopy costs man €1,000

A man who said he accidentally slipped from a ledge onto a hotel's canvas canopy has ended up paying almost €1,000 in reparation after he pleaded guilty to wilfully causing damage to property, in the hope of leaving the islands.

Sihel Zigai Sinahs from Italy was arraigned before magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras this afternoon, accused of having wilfully caused damage to a canopy at the Continental Hotel in St Julian’s, to the detriment of Kevin Decesare. The incident took place at 4:30am on Thursday.

This charge was initially contested by the man's lawyer Martin Fenech, who explained that the incident was not wilful, but had occurred because his client had been walking on a ledge and fell.

But the defendant balked when prosecuting police inspector Trevor Micallef informed the court that the cost of repairing the damage had been estimated at €969, with Fenech arguing that the prosecution's valuation had been made by an ex-parte expert who also happens to work for the hotel.

“The injustice is that if he wants to contest the amount, it means he is going to spend months or weeks in Malta which is not an ideal situation.” The accused is leaving the islands on Sunday, he said, having already missed his original flight home. “He is pleading guilty because he has no time to stay.”

The court, quite rightly, pointed out that it could not accept a conditional guilty plea and the accused was not admitting to the action being voluntary. The accused interrupted, “I didn't jump on the roof, I fell... I don't have time to stay in Malta. The thing is, I saw the picture of what was broken and it was one of the many spokes that was split a little. My question is, is that worth the €969 that I am being asked to pay?”

The accused initially failed to grasp the problem, “I did not understand the meaning of whatever you guys told me. I was the guy who jumped on it so I'm guilty. If that's the damage, I'll pay for the damage,” Sinahs said.

The court repeated that the charge was one of wilful damage. If the action was not voluntary there can be no guilty plea, it said.

“I jumped over the fence and tried to get down normally and I slipped. That is what happened and what can I say more than that?” replied the confused man. The magistrate patiently explained that “wilful” meant the action had to be intentional and that he was saying it was an accident.

“I cannot accept these kind of pleas. It is very clear to the court that he doesn't want to plead guilty. He is pleading guilty because he doesn't want to remain under arrest. A guilty plea is a plea you enter into voluntarily, not because you do not want to waste time,” the court said.

A bizarre situation ensued, where the court was forced to fend off arguments from the prosecution, the defence as well as the accused who all preferred an expedient guilty verdict and the corresponding suspended sentence, to having to wait for the case to be assigned and heard as normal.

“Although the accused had insisted that the damage was not committed intentionally or wilfully, his lawyer is informing the court that the accused would like to plead guilty to the charges brought against him. In the circumstances and in view of the accused's insistence that it was not caused wilfully, apart from the fact that he is also contesting the value of the damage caused, the court deems that it cannot accept a guilty plea in such circumstances.”

Fenech once again, this time formally, told the court that the accused was pleading guilty to the charges and pointed out that an accused can lawfully change his plea during his arraignment.

“You spent the last 15 minutes telling the court that it wasn't carried out intentionally,” the exasperated magistrate pointed out to the accused, who having apparently cottoned on to what was required to spare him the prospect of a protracted court case, proceeded to embellish his claim with additional details.

“I was intoxicated, your honour...I saw the closest thing and I jumped on it. You have to understand that I am tired, I didn't sleep last night.”

Faced with an increasingly tangled situation, with both parties agreeing and with no prospect of resolution, the court accepted the accused's guilty plea, but only after making him reconfirm it at least three times. He said he was willing to pay the damage as per the estimates of the ex-parte witness.

But no sooner had that issue been put to bed, did another one crop up.

Inspector Micallef opined that it would be better to have the accused pay the damages before releasing him or risk the man simply leaving the islands. The accused only had €400 available on his credit card, the inspector added. “What am I supposed to do, hold him until his family wires the money?”

The court ordered the accused be escorted to his Hotel in Sliema to transfer the funds to his VISA card online and then withdraw the cash from an ATM. But the accused returned 20 minutes later, telling the court that he was unable to withdraw all the money he needed from the ATM due to bank-imposed cash withdrawal limits.

The accused handed the court €500 cash he had successfully withdrawn, before being escorted to his Sliema Hotel in the driving rain in order to make alternative arrangements for the remaining €469.

The sitting was suspended until his return.

Sinahs was found guilty and conditionally discharged for 3 years in view of the fact that he had made good the damage that he caused. He was warned that he would be imprisoned if found guilty of another offence during that period.