Appeal court annulled both the lower tribunal's sentence and the enforcement notice itself after LESA failed to serve the speed-gun ticket within the mandatory 5 working days.
Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature · Magistrate Dr. Gabriella Vella B.A., LL.D. · 30 April 2026
On 14 August 2025, James Cutajar was alleged to have driven on Triq l-Imdina, Attard, at more than 15 km/h above the speed limit, an offence captured by a speed gun. LESA (the Local Enforcement System Agency) issued a contravention notice and the case was heard before the Local Tribunal of San Ġwann, which on 11 November 2025 found Cutajar guilty, fined him €100, added a late-payment penalty of €11.65, and imposed 4 penalty points on his driving licence. Cutajar appealed to the Court of Magistrates on six grounds, including prescription of the action, the absence of a penalty attached to the specific regulation cited, the use of an unscheduled device, missing certification requirements, lack of calibration proof, and the failure to positively identify him as the driver. Before addressing these grounds, the court raised a procedural nullity of its own motion. The appellate court observed that the San Ġwann tribunal's sentence failed to cite the specific legal provision under which guilt was found — a mandatory requirement under Article 382 of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9). Citing settled jurisprudence of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Magistrates' Court held that failure to satisfy even one of Article 382's three requirements (statement of facts, imposition of penalty, and citation of the relevant law) constitutes a substantial formal defect rendering the sentence null and void. Having annulled the lower sentence, the court then exercised its power under Article 428(3) of Chapter 9 to decide the case on the merits. It found that LESA had itself admitted it could not prove when the speed-gun ticket was physically dispatched. The court confirmed from the case documents that no dispatch date was identifiable. Under Regulation 3(2) of Subsidiary Legislation 291.03, a contravention notice not served in person must be sent by post within 5 working days of the alleged offence. Regulation 3(5) provides that failure to observe this procedure renders the notice null ipso jure. Accordingly, the court declared the contravention notice null ipso jure, declared all proceedings against Cutajar null, and declined to take any further cognisance of the case. Cutajar was effectively cleared of all liability.
Appeal upheld. Sentence of the San Ġwann Local Tribunal of 11 November 2025 declared null and void. Contravention notice issued by LESA declared null ipso jure. All proceedings against James Cutajar declared null. €100 fine, €11.65 late-payment penalty, and 4 driving licence penalty points all fall away. Court abstains from any further jurisdiction over the matter.
Criminal Code Ch. 9 — Art. 382 (sentencing requirements), Art. 428(3) (appellate powers); Chapter 291 (Administrative Justice Act) — Art. 8, Art. 10(2), Art. 11(1)(2), Art. 14(2); Subsidiary Legislation 291.03 — Reg. 3(2)(5) (notification within 5 working days, nullity for non-compliance); Subsidiary Legislation 65.11 — Reg. 127 (motor vehicle speed limits)