A man was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for criminal negligence due to the collapse of a scaffold and injured several teenagers. The case will be heard again

A judge has ordered the retrial of a company director who was sentenced to prison. He was found responsible for an incident in 2008 when a teenager was paralyzed by the collapse of a lighting structure.

Maurice Attard of Sonlit Ltd was sentenced to 10 months in prison for criminal negligence and serious bodily harm in 2016. Sonlit Ltd has been subcontracted in the parking lot of St. Paul's Bay in 2016.

About three hours after the party began, strong winds caused the structure and heavy spotlights to collapse, injuring eight people.

Vlada Kravchenko (Vlada Kravchenko) was only 17 years old when he collapsed and injured his spinal cord. Now he can only use a wheelchair. As soon as the Ukrainian teenager arrived at the party, the scaffold collapsed.

Attard appealed his conviction, arguing that, among other things, the district court did not ask the defendant whether he wanted summary trial or trial in the criminal court—an important procedural point. A formal defect appeared in 2010, and the case subsequently passed through the hands of three different magistrates.

In the statement submitted to the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General confirmed that this issue was not raised with the defendant, but argued that this would not invalidate the lawsuit because the defense did not raise this issue with the district court, which has continued to hear all evidence in the case , Including the testimony of the defendant himself.

The presiding judge of the Criminal Appeals Court, Mr. Giovanni Grixti, pointed out that when Attard was convicted, the jurisdiction of the district court was increased, allowing him to hear cases with a maximum sentence of two years in prison.

The court has begun to collect evidence about the man’s case because it did not initially obtain the consent of the Attorney General to try the case in summary. When the Attorney General finally requests a summary trial of the case, the court is legally obliged to ask the defendant whether he has any objections to this.

Attard claimed that he had never been asked this question. The prosecution argued that this consent was tacit, because he not only allowed the proceedings to proceed, but also testified in the proceedings.

When ruling the case, the judge emphasized that the court of first instance must ask the defendant whether he agrees to the summary procedure. The judge said that it was impossible to deduce this necessary formality and explained that it would be fatal to the case without it.

Attorneys Giannella De Marco and Stephen Toonna Lowell appeared as Attard's defense counsel.