Accused demands release on bail

A man being held in preventive custody on charges of having assisted in influencing a member of the judiciary yesterday filed a constitutional application requesting the First Hall of the Civil Court to provide him with a remedy, including release on bail.

Joseph Zammit argued he was arraigned on August 19 on charges of having accepted some offer or promise of advantage with the scope of exercising some undue influence on the manner in which a judge was to decide litigation. He had been detained in preventive custody for over three months and in that period of time the compilation proceedings against him had been concluded.

Zammit had already requested to be granted release on bail but his requests were denied by the Magistrates' Court on August 30 and by the Criminal Court on October 4. In its decree the latter court had ruled it was not satisfied, in the circumstances of the case and particularly in the light of the accused's criminal record, that he could be released on bail without there being a danger of interference with the administration of justice.

In yesterday's application Zammit declared the Criminal Court had carried out an analysis of a number of factors when it had denied him bail. However, this analysis had been carried out from a specific point of view and not in an objective manner. According to Zammit, the Criminal Court had ignored factors that were equally important in the grant of bail. Thus, Zammit claimed that while the Criminal Court had referred to his criminal record it had not verified the nature of the crimes included in this criminal record. This exercise was important for once the court was basing its refusal on the accused's criminal record any crimes committed by the accused had to be related or connected with the crime with which Zammit was currently accused.

Zammit submitted that it resulted from his criminal record that the majority of offences for which he had been found guilty were of a contraventional nature and that, furthermore, none of the offences was connected, even remotely, to the crime of bribing a public officer. All these offences were committed a number of years ago, namely between 1965 and 1995, but the Criminal Court had failed to take this circumstance into consideration.

In yesterday's application Zammit claimed that the fact that an accused person had a criminal record was less relevant in the case where the accused, who had requested release on bail, had cooperated with the administration of justice. It clearly resulted that Zammit had collaborated but this important factor was discarded by the Criminal Court despite its importance.

Zammit added that continued arrest was the exception to the general rule of the freedom of the individual and the exception could only be upheld when there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest. This was clearly not the case in point.

When referring to the refusal by the Magistrates' Court to grant him bail, Zammit pointed out that the said decree was issued at a time when the compilation proceedings were not yet concluded. Substantial changes in the circumstances of the case had taken place since the decree was issued and the prosecution had produced all its evidence. Thus, there was no longer the fear that the course of justice might be tampered with. Furthermore, Zammit added that the prosecution had to provide supporting evidence for its view that the accused would interfere with the course of justice and no evidence had been provided by the prosecution in his regard.

Zammit added that the prosecution had only provided such evidence in the case of former Chief Justice Noel Arrigo in proceedings that were separate from those of Zammit but connected thereto and that the former judge had still been granted release on bail.

He added that he was entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. However, the compilation proceedings did not constitute a trial and he was still being deprived of his liberty. He added that the prosecution had not objected to his being granted release on bail but he courts had still refused to order his release from preventive custody.

According to Zammit, the refusal by the court indicated discriminatory treatment for Zammit was not being treated in the same manner as his co-accused, including Pierre Camilleri and Anthony Grech Sant. The courts, Zammit added, were duty bound to reinstate public confidence in the institutions of justice and the principle of equality before the law had to be upheld. If justice was not seen to be done then one could ask whether different treatment was being meted out to different accused persons or whether judges and businessmen had privileges that ordinary persons, such as Zammit, did not enjoy.

Zammit concluded his application by declaring that he had been involved in a car accident and required medical and humanitarian aid. He requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to ensure that the provisions of law protecting his fundamental human rights were observed and to provide him with a remedy of release on bail.

Dr Chris Soler and Dr Chris Cardona signed the application.