Co-accused in Mdina stabbing claims human rights violation

Carmel Attard, nicknamed iz-Zambi, yesterday filed a constitutional application in the Civil Court claiming that his fundamental human rights to a fair trial and to freedom from discrimination had been violated.

He also requested the court to hear and decide his case with urgency.

Attard, who had filed a guilty plea to complicity in the attempted murder of the prime minister's personal assistant, filed his application against the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner.

Attard declared he had been sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment on October 7, 1998 by the Criminal Court after he had pleaded guilty to the charges brought against him.

He had been detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility for over seven years after the court had dismissed his request for the testimony of Nicholas Jensen, a principal witness, to be made available to him. The court had also dismissed his request to withdraw the admission of guilt he had made previously.

Attard added that in the course of the criminal procedures, Joseph Fenech, better known as Zeppi l-Hafi, had been given a conditional presidential pardon while Attard and the other co-accused, Ian Farrugia, had been tried for the crime.

In yesterday's application Attard submitted that he had sustained a number of violations to his right to a fair hearing and that when one viewed these cumulatively, one would reach the conclusion that these violations hampered the administration of justice to the extent that Attard had been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, while co-accused Farrugia was acquitted of the charges against him.

The person who had organised the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana had not even been charged in court and had been granted a pardon, he claimed.

This state of affairs did not reflect well on the local judicial system and did not reflect the truth of what had occurred.

Attard added that his right to a fair hearing had been violated by the fact that he had not been given equality of arms with the prosecution in the proceedings against him.

He had not been given the same opportunity as the prosecution to examine the important testimony given by Jensen. Thus, Attard was also deprived of the opportunity to make use of this testimony when it came to verbal submissions on the penalty to be imposed upon him.

The prison sentence was supposed to reflect the particular facts of the case and not simply the seriousness of the crime with which the accused was charged.

This procedural defect was not remedied by the Court of Criminal Appeal which had the opportunity to hear a witness anew in order to decide upon what penalty to inflict.

Attard had requested the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear the testimony of both Jensen and Farrugia but his request had not been taken into consideration and this denial further violated his right to a fair hearing.

Attard also submitted that his right to a fair hearing had been violated by the fact that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence.

He claimed that on October 7, 1998 the Criminal Court had completely altered the course of the proceedings filed against him for it had upheld a request previously filed by the prosecution for Attard and Farrugia to be tried separately.

On that very same day, and without any previous notice, Attard had been told to make his submissions on the penalty to be imposed.

In his application, Attard submitted that when proceedings against two co-accused were separated, new proceedings were filed against each co-accused.

Thus, the Criminal Court could never have proceeded to hear verbal submissions on the penalty without commencing afresh the proceedings against Attard.

Attard was not given adequate time to prepare his defence and he could not view the testimony given by Jensen to prepare his submissions.

The law in this regard did not only protect the accused but also protected his lawyer.

In this case, Attard's previous lawyers had renounced their brief and the new lawyer was forced to make his submissions on the penalty without having been given adequate time or facilities to do so.

In the light of the pardon given to Fenech and the latter's far from exemplary character, the Criminal Court ought to have concluded that Attard's admission of guilt had not been voluntary but had been caused by threats or fear or by promises of advantage.

Attard also submitted that a further violation of his right to a fair hearing had occurred when the Criminal Court had heard Jensen's testimony behind closed doors even though there were no reasons at law for this to have occurred.

This aspect created a link with Attard's submission that he had been discriminated against on political grounds.

Attard also submitted that the pardon granted to Fenech had impeded the natural course of justice and had violated the preamble to the European Convention of Human Rights which contemplated the positive obligations of the state.

The pardon seriously undermined sacred principles such as that of equality before the law and that justice had not only to be done but had to be seen to be done.

Attard concluded his application by requesting the Civil Court to find that his fundamental human rights to a fair trial and to freedom from discrimination had been violated.

The court was requested, as an interim measure, to order that Attard be released on bail or, alternatively, to order that he be tried anew.

The court was also requested to declare that the pardon granted to Fenech was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution and to award Attard compensation.

Dr Chris Soler and Dr Chris Cardona signed the application.