Freed man jailed again, awarded Lm3,000 in moral damages

The Constitutional Court has overturned a Civil Court judgment setting a man free in lieu of serving a jail term 20 years after he committed a crime and finding a breach of his fundamental human right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri, Mr Justice Albert Magri and Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo varied a judgment handed down by the Civil Court just 11 days ago in the constitutional application filed by John Bugeja.

Bugeja had been sentenced to six years in jail by the Magistrates' Court in April 1993 on charges of violent theft, sexual assault and unlawful detention and his appeal was determined in October 2002, almost 20 years after the commission of the crimes.

This meant that Bugeja, 38, a married man and the father of six children, was now serving a jail term for a crime he had committed when he was 18 years old.

The Civil Court had concluded that there had been unreasonable delay in the criminal procedures, particularly before the Court of Criminal Appeal, for when the case was put off for judgment, the proceedings had hiccupped along and no judgment was delivered for over eight years.

This delay could never be considered reasonable, and the passage of almost 20 years for a case to be decided upon from start to finish was exaggerated.

The Court had deemed the most appropriate remedy to be that of ordering Bugeja's immediate release from prison.

Both the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner appealed to the Constitutional Court, which yesterday declared that it was substantially in agreement with the findings of the first court, for the lapse of 19 years for the final decision of a criminal case was excessive.

None of the factors raised by appellants, including the fact that the case was complex and had a number of co-accused could diminish the state's obligation to provide for the conclusion of criminal cases within a reasonable time.

However, the Constitutional Court did not agree with the remedy provided to Bugeja by the first court.

The law had granted wide powers to the courts when it came to providing remedies for human rights violations, which powers included that of annulling a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal when this was required.

However, the remedy provided by the first court was too liberal towards the accused and was dismissive of the rights of the persons who had been Bugeja's victims and the rights of society as a whole.

The lengthy criminal proceedings that Bugeja had endured could not exonerate him from serving a prison sentence legitimately inflicted upon him by the courts, for the prison sentence constituted justice for Bugeja's victims.

The Constitutional Court added that the first court had not given any weight to the conclusion reached by the Court of Criminal Appeal that Bugeja had not reformed.

The appellate court had noted that Bugeja could have been sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment for his crimes, and had ruled that no further deductions to the prison sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court were to be effected for this reason.

The Constitutional Court therefore decided that the most appropriate remedy for the violation of Bugeja's fundamental human rights was that of awarding him Lm3,000 in moral damages.

The Attorney General was represented by Dr Peter Grech and Dr Franco Bondin.

Meanwhile, Bugeja's lawyers Dr José Herrera and Dr Roberto Montalto yesterday said they would be going to the European Court of Human Rights to contest the decision.