The Republic of Malta

Vs

Kamil Kurucu

Judge Joseph Galea Debono

11 December, 2006

Criminal Court

The accused was charged with the following:

1) In March 2005 he met a person in Turkey who asked him to illegally import a large quantity of ecstasy pills into Malta. He agreed to carry the pills in his luggage and that he was to be paid $3,000 for doing so. He was given a down payment of $1,500 and the balance was to be paid later, after delivery to an individual in Malta to be identified by the Turkish person. The accused reached Malta on 31 March 2005 carrying 10,006 ecstasy pills. He was detained by the police at the airport when the pills were found in his possession. He was accused of having, with an/other person/s in Malta, and outside Malta, conspired for the purpose of committing an offence in violation of the provisions of the Medical and Kindred Professions Ordinance (Chapter 31 of the Laws of Malta) and specifically of dealing illegally in any manner in ecstasy pills and of having promoted, constituted, organised and financed such conspiracy.

It was demanded that

• Kurucu be proceeded against according to law;

• Kurucu be sentenced to life imprisonment and to a fine between Lm1,000-Lm50,000;

• there be the forfeiture in favour of the government of the entire immovable and movable property in which the offence took place;

Or

• the accused be subject to any other punishment applicable according to law to the declaration of guilt of the accused.

The pills were intended to be dealt with and sold in Malta. Ecstasy pills, (the designer drug known as MDMA – methylenedioxymethamphetamine), are dangerous drugs restricted and controlled under the Ordinance.

The accused pleaded guilty at a sitting on 4 December 2006.

The Court pointed out the consequences of pleading guilty, allowing him time to retract. The accused persisted in his admission of guilt of all three counts:

• Conspiracy;

• Importing restricted and controlled drugs;

• Possession of dangerous drugs without import authorisation sometimes granted by the Ordinance indicating that such possession was not for the exclusive use of the offender.

The defence counsel demanded that Kurucu benefit from a reduction in punishment as contemplated by Article 29 of Chapter 101 (Dangerous Drugs Ordinance) as rendered applicable to the offences under Chapter 31 because of his full cooperation with the police in the course of the investigation.

The prosecution stated that no proceedings could be taken against third parties as a result of the information given by the convicted person to the police, as no person could be identified as a result of that information. Therefore Kurucu could not benefit from any reduction. This case involved a considerable quantity of ecstasy pills which, valued at Lm5 per pill, totalled about Lm50,000. The prosecution agreed, however, that Kurucu should benefit from his early declaration of guilt and hence requested the Court to a minimum sentence of 12 years imprisonment instead of a life sentence in addition to any fine.

The Court considered:

• Article 492(1) of the Criminal Code stating that whenever, at any stage prior to the empanelling of the jury, the accused pleads guilty to an offence attracting the punishment of life imprisonment, the Court may, instead of said punishment, award a prison sentence of 18-30 years.

• The proviso (aa) of Article 120A(2)(a)(i) of Chapter 31 which states that when the Court is of the opinion that, having regard to the offender’s age, his previous conduct, the quantity of the medicine and the quality of the equipment or material involved and all the other circumstances of the offence, life imprisonment is not warranted, the Court may sentence the convicted person to imprisonment for 4-30 years together with the fine mentioned above.

• Kurucu’s clean conduct sheet, at least in Malta.

• Both local and foreign case law regarding the plea for mitigation of punishment when the accused person files an early plea of guilt (Republic vs. Azzopardi-1997; Republic vs. Camilleri-2002; Police vs. Testa-2002).

According to Article 29, for the person convicted of an offence under the ordinance to benefit from the reduction in punishment, it is necessary for the prosecution to have declared in the records of the proceedings that the convicted person has helped the police to apprehend the person/s who had supplied the convicted person with the drugs in question, or else that said convicted person proves to the court’s satisfaction that it had so helped the police.

From the evidence tendered by a police inspector, it was revealed that the information given by Kurucu did not lead to the identification of the Turkish supplier or, if there was one, the consignee in Malta. The court felt that the police had not been helped to a degree that rendered Article 29 applicable.

The court considered the large amount of pills and the impact such importation would have had, had the convicted individual not been caught. The court stated that Kurucu “…abused the hospitality extended to him by Maltese society as a visitor to this island by using his visit to further his criminal ends and to make a considerable profit.”

The court condemned Kurucu to 12 years imprisonment and to a fine of Lm12,000 – which would be automatically converted to 18 months imprisonment if not paid within 15 days from the date of the judgement – and to Lm803.71 in respect of court expenses. The court also ordered the confiscation, in favour of the Maltese government, of objects related to the crime and of all money, immovable and movable property pertaining to Kurucu. Finally, the court ordered the destruction of the drugs.