This was an appeal to a judgement delivered by the First Hall, Civil Court in February 2005. This case involved an alleged incident between two cyclists.

In the original judgement, Plaintiff requested that the Court condemn Defendant to pay damages for causing him to fall off his bicycle. The Court noted that the parties of the case were rival cyclists. They already had a history of antagonism involving fist fights, one of which led to the Defendants suspension from the sports association with which he was a member.

Both parties related completely different facts leading up to the event in question.

Plaintiff claimed that on the day of the incident in September 1993, while riding his bicycle, Defendant pushed him causing him to lose his balance and fall causing injuries. Defendant allegedly left him lying on the ground and it was a passerby that offered him assistance and accompanied him to the Mosta polyclinic. Plaintiff filed a complaint and the Police prosecuted. He admitted to the alleged actions and apologised for his action and gave his word that he would not molest Plaintiff again.

Defendant on the other hand stated that the above was untrue. He claimed that at the time of the incident, he was very disappointed due to his suspension from his sports association which happened due to his argument with Plaintiff. He felt that had Plaintiff said the truth regarding the incident that led to his suspension, he would not have been suspended.

He claimed that on the day of the incident in question, he approached Plaintiff to ask him to say the truth. Allegedly, once Defendant approached Plaintiff, the latter removed his hands from his handlebars, got confused and fell without Defendant’s physical intervention.

Defendant also denied to ever having admitted to the incident.

The Court gave more weight to Plaintiff’s version after consulting a legal expert regarding the veracity of both versions of the series of the events in question. The legal expert could tell that Defendant was of an aggressive temperament from his behaviour in Court.

The Court hence believed that when Defendant approached Plaintiff, his intentions were aggressive and hostile and not to sort things out civilly.

If the Plaintiff had indeed fallen alone, then why did Defendant flee and leave Plaintiff on the ground?

The doctor who attended the Defendant at the policlinic took the witness stand and stated that Plaintiff “…had multiple injuries and he was in great pain and agony … …… His injuries were on the knees, elbows and the flanks where he had large abrasions with loss of skin. …”. To leave Plaintiff on the ground in such a state, the Court could only believe that Defendant was not innocent.

For these reasons, the First Hall Civil Court stated that the Defendant had with bad faith intentionally pushed the Plaintiff causing him injuries.

The Court then proceeded to liquidate damages and after taking into consideration many issues condemned the Defendant to the payment of Lm7,261.53 in favour of Plaintiff.

Defendant appealed stating that:

• Plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof to back his claims

• The Court unjustifiably gave more credibility to Plaintiff’s version

• The court should not have relied on his allegedly admitting before the Court of Magistrates since criminal and civil procedures are altogether distinct issues..

• Since damages were to be paid as a lump sump payment, the Court should have reduced a percentage.

The Court of Appeal examined all the evidence presented to the legal expert. The Court agreed with his appreciation of the facts and rejected the first two grounds of appeal raised.

The Court of Appeal referred to Article 6 of the Criminal Code which states:

The criminal action and the civil action are prosecuted independently of one another.

The Court of Appeal however felt that in this case, reference had to be made to Article 632(1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure which states:

632. (1) Any declaration made by a party against his interest, or any other writing containing any admission, agreement, or obligation is admissible as evidence.

The verbal of the Court of Magistrates recorded Defendant as admitting to the incident and hence, until evidence could be produced questioning the very genuinity of the document, this was admissible as evidence. Hence although the criminal action and civil action are separate issues in which the former seeks to determine guilt or otherwise and the latter determines the civil damages due, what was presented in one procedure could be admissible in the other. This was stated in the judgement Vincent Briffa pro et noe v. Vincent Oliver Abela pro et noe, (2003) in which the Court stated that there seems to be nothing in the Law preventing the production during a civil case, of the judgement delivered by the Criminal Court on the same facts. Naturally, in line with Article 558 of the COCP,” All evidence must be relevant to the matter in issue between the parties.

Regarding the final issue raised by the appellant, the Court of Appeal stated that in line with case law, since a considerable amount of time had passed from the date of the incident, it agreed with the sum reached by the First Hall, Civil Court.

For the above reasons, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the First Hall, Civil Court and rejected the appeal.