Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546572
A taxi driver who had been acquit- ted of negligently causing grievous injuries to a pedestrian has been convicted on appeal, after a court ruled that he failed to keep a prop- er lookout while driving Clint Farrugia was fined €2,329.37 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for six months after the Criminal Court of Appeal over- turned his acquittal over a traffic accident in Bormla. The case dates back to 16 No- vember 2018, when Farrugia was driving a taxi vehicle along St Paul Road in Bormla, at around 8:10pm. The accused struck a pe- destrian, who sustained serious injuries to his head and face and was admitted to Mater Dei Hospi- tal in a critical condition. Farrugia was subsequently charged with involuntarily caus- ing grievous bodily harm through negligence and with negligent driving. In September 2025, the Court of Magistrates acquitted him of both charges, citing uncertainty surrounding road signage and vis- ibility at the time of the accident. The Attorney General appealed that decision, arguing that Far- rugia had failed to keep a proper lookout and that the evidence es- tablished the elements necessary for a conviction. In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the conclusions reached by the first court. Central to the appeal was the physical configuration of the road and where the victim was positioned when he was hit. Pho- tographs and technical reports showed St Paul Road to be a long, straight and wide road, with Far- rugia having a clear view directly ahead of him. The Court noted that there were no bends, junctions, traffic con- gestion or other obstacles in the immediate area that could have obstructed Farrugia's view or made the pedestrian's presence unforeseeable. A technical expert also con- cluded that the victim had al- ready crossed approximately three-quarters of the width of the road by the time he was struck. The Court said this was not a sit- uation in which a pedestrian had suddenly stepped into the road, potentially catching the driver by surprise. The judgment described Farrugia's failure to see the victim crossing as "inexplicable," particu- larly since there was no evidence of anything obstructing his view or of an oncoming vehicle pre- venting him from seeing the pe- destrian. The Court concluded that this pointed towards Farrugia having failed to maintain a proper look- out. Had he been sufficiently at- tentive to what was happening di- rectly ahead of him, he would have had enough time and space either to stop or reduce his speed and al- low the victim to finish crossing, the court held. Driver was travelling at moderate speed The Court stressed that Farru- gia was not speeding, with experts calculating his speed at between 26km/h and 34km/h, while his vehicle's brakes and steering were found to be in proper working condition. However, investigators found no skid marks or evidence that he had attempted to brake or change direction before the crash. Although the road was dry and the weather was good, a faulty street light intermittently restrict- ed visibility, which the Attor- ney General argued should have prompted greater caution on a road regularly used by pedestrians and vehicles. The Court found that Farrugia had failed to see what was reason- ably within plain view, particu- larly since the victim had already crossed most of the road. It concluded that his driving fell below the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent driver and therefore amounted to negli- gent driving. Pedestrian also contributed to accident However, the Court did not place responsibility entirely on Farrugia. It found there had also been contributory negligence on the victim's part, noting that he had chosen to cross a busy main road at a location which was not ideal for pedestrians. There was no pel- ican crossing at the point where the victim crossed. The Court said this did not ab- solve Farrugia of criminal respon- sibility for his own negligent driv- ing, but took the victim's conduct into account when determining the appropriate punishment. Victim was in critical condition The Attorney General's second ground of appeal concerned the serious injuries suffered by the victim. Court-appointed expert Mario Scerri documented signif- icant head and facial injuries, in- cluding a deep wound caused by violent blunt trauma. The Court noted that there was no medical evidence establishing whether the injuries had caused any permanent disability, as a planned follow-up examination was never carried out. However, a medical certificate confirmed that the victim had been in danger of dying when ad- mitted to hospital. Since an injury that places a per- son's life in danger is legally con- sidered grievous bodily harm, the Court found there was sufficient evidence to classify the victim's in- juries as grievous. The Court therefore upheld both grounds of appeal filed by the Attorney General and overturned Farrugia's acquittal. It found him guilty of both in- voluntarily causing grievous bodily harm through negligence and negligent driving. The court fined Farrugia €2,329.37 and dis- qualified him from holding or obtaining a driving licence for six months. He was also ordered to pay €3,426.85 in court expenses. Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera presided over the Crimi- nal Court of Appeal. 8 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 16 SEPTEMBER 2026 NEWS MAYA GALEA mgalea@mediatoday.com.mt ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CHANGE OF NAME Case No. 26CU046877C Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Petition of: Wei Xia & Fei He on behalf of Karen H Xia, a minor for Change of Name TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner Wei Xia & Fei He on behalf of Karen H Xia, a minor filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: KAREN H XIA to KARINA H XIA. The Court orders that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without hearing. Notice of Hearing: Date: 10/19/2026 Time: 08:30 AM., Dept.: 61, The address of the court is 330 West Broadway, San Diego 92101 (o appear remotely, check in advance of the hearing for information about how to do so on the court's website. To find your court's website, go to www.courts.ca.gov/find-my-court.htm.) A copy of this Order to Show Cause must be published at least once each week for four successive weeks before the date set for hearing on the petition in a newspaper of general circulation, printed in the county in which petitioner resides or, if no county, in the local subdivision or territory where petitioner resides. Malta Today Date: 8/28/2026 Michael S. Groch. Judge of the Superior Court. Taxi driver convicted on appeal over Bormla crash that critically injured pedestrian