The Constitutional Court judgment which yesterday found that two judges' presumption of innocence had been violated is seen as a first in Maltese legal and political history.

The Constitutional Court has ruled that when the prime minister spoke the words "it became known" (sar maghruf) and "it resulted (to the police)" (rrizultalha) at a news conference, the prime minister had not used all necessary discretion and circumspection to respect the presumption of innocence.

The court noted that there was therefore objective reasoning to suspect that the prime minister had considered the two former judges guilty of the charge of receiving bribes.

This was subjectively reinforced by various newspaper articles of the news conference.

The prime minister had addressed the news conference in August last year to announce that the police were investigating the two judges.

The Constitutional Court said it followed that the judges' right to a fair trial had been violated on the basis of the violation of the presumption of innocence.

The constitutional court, however, concluded that as appellants' fundamental human right to trial by an independent and impartial court had not been violated, there was no reason to halt the criminal proceedings against the former judges.

In the circumstances of the case it was opportune for yesterday's judgment to be inserted into the criminal proceedings against the two former judges, from which the constitutional reference was made.

The Times yesterday sought to get a comment from Dr Fenech Adami, but was not successful. Dr Fenech Adami is today expected to address a news conference to launch a White Paper on the Public Service Act.

In an interview with The Times following the judges' arraignment, Dr Fenech Adami had said he never imagined that bribery charges would be brought against anyone who accepted an appointment to the bench.

He added that the case had affected him profoundly and that it would continue to dominate public opinion until justice was done.

On whether he had prejudiced the case of the two judges by his statement that they had received money, Dr Fenech Adami said in the interview that he had very definite views on the subject and had "no regrets" over what he had done.

Legal sources yesterday said it was clear that the Constitutional Court judgment was saying that the criminal proceedings against the two judges have to continue.

"The Constitutional Court found in favour of the submissions raised by the attorney general, that there were enough guarantees in the judicial system to ensure that even if the news conference had prejudiced the presumption of innocence of appellants, one could not say that the crimes with which they had been charged could not be determined by an objectively independent and impartial court.

"This was so in the eventuality that the appellants were tried by a magistrate's court or by a trial by jury, or in the eventuality of an appeal to the court of criminal appeal. Basically, the court is saying that we have a very good criminal court which can handle such a scenario."

The sources said that when the Constitutional Court ruled that given the circumstances of the case, it was opportune for yesterday's judgment to be inserted into the criminal proceedings against the two former judges, the court was "basically telling the jury, judge or magistrate not only to be careful, but to be extra careful to ensure a fair hearing".

The sources said the judgment could be seen as an attempt to strike a balance between the right of the individual - in this case, the two judges - and the right of society, which has a right to try the judges for bribery.

Legal sources said they believed the two judges now have six months in which to raise the case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the point which has been turned down by the Constitutional Court, when it found in favour of the submissions raised by the attorney general that there were enough guarantees in the judicial system to ensure that even if the news conference had prejudiced the presumption of innocence of appellants, it could not be said that the crimes with which they had been charged could not be determined by an objectively independent and impartial court.