The Court of Appeal yesterday revoked a decision of the revising officer in an electoral application filed by Henri Darmanin against Carmelina Debattista and the electoral commission.

The court, composed of Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti, ruled that once a court had decreed a person incapacitated due to mental illness, its decision could not be subject to review by a medical board.

The appeal court heard how Darmanin had filed an electoral application on November 19 last year, requesting that Debattista be removed from the electoral register on the grounds that she had been legally incapacitated by the Second Hall of the Civil Court by a decree of December 12, 2000.

But on February 20, the revising officer had dismissed Darmanin's application following advice given by the medical board established in terms of law.

No reason for the dismissal was contained in the decision delivered by the revising officer.

Darmanin appealed on the grounds that once Debattista had been declared incapacitated by the Second Hall of the Civil Court because of mental illness, the revising officer could not act on the advice of the medical board to overturn the court's decision.

On the contrary, the revising officer ought to have given effect to the court's ruling and the only admissible evidence before the revising officer was the court records in Debattista's case.

Thus, the only defence that Debattista could have raised was that the court decree delivered in her regard in 2000 had been overturned, or that the decree referred to a person other than herself, Darmanin argued.

The Court of Appeal yesterday declared that, as the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, once there was a decision of the local courts to interdict or incapacitate a person because of mental illness, such decision could not be subject to review by a medical board.

It was obvious that, in such cases, the person alleging that a voter had been interdicted had to prove this fact.

Furthermore, a decision of the Second Hall of the Civil Court pronouncing interdiction or incapacitation was usually delivered in a very short form.

If such decision did not make specific reference to a mental illness, then one would have to examine the records giving rise to such a decree in order to examine whether, as a point of fact, the Second Hall of the Civil Court had based its decision to interdict on mental illness.

It was mental illness that could enable one to be struck off the electoral register in terms of the law governing elections, and the Court of Appeal added that there were circumstances when a person could be declared incapacitated by the Second Hall of the Civil Court for reasons other than mental illness.

In this particular case the revising officer had sought the advice of the medical board, despite Darmanin's opposition, and had overturned Darmanin's application.

It resulted, said the Court of Appeal, that Darmanin had not been given the opportunity to prove the existence of the court decree incapacitating Debattista.

The Court of Appeal declared that the decision of the revising officer was null and void, and it remitted the case back to the revising officer for a decision according to law.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.