Man in drugs case claims human rights violation

Godfrey Ellul yesterday filed a constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that his fundamental human right to a fair hearing had been violated in the course of proceedings before the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Ellul, 55, of St Julians, said that on March 17 the Court of Criminal Appeal had varied a judgment delivered in his regard by the Criminal Court.

Ellul had been jailed for 20 years and fined Lm20,000 after jurors had found him guilty of conspiracy to deal in drugs and the possession of drugs. His jail term was reduced to nine years and the fine to Lm12,000 after he was cleared of conspiracy on appeal. He based his appeal on the grounds that he had been wrongly convicted on the facts of the case and that the Criminal Court had incorrectly interpreted and applied the law. While the Court of Criminal Appeal established that there were a number of instances of wrong application of the law, it had concluded that this had not influenced the verdict. In his application, Ellul complained that the Court of Criminal Appeal had not concluded that there was maladministration of justice.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, Ellul argued, ought to have examined the evidence anew. His appeal was based on points of fact and the Court of Appeal had declared that it would not disturb the appreciation of the evidence made by the Criminal Court.

However, Ellul submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal was bound to examine the facts when dealing with a criminal appeal as this was not a review in terms of law. The Court of Criminal Appeal was empowered to hear witnesses who had not testified before the Criminal Court. In this case however, Ellul submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had restricted the ambit of his appeal and had considered that the facts of the case were correct.

The accused person who lodged an appeal was entitled to the guarantees of the presumption of innocence as though in a court of first instance. Once an appeal was filed on the merits or facts of the case, then the appellant was entitled to have these facts examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Ellul added that the procedures before the Court of Criminal Appeal had also violated his fundamental human right to remain silent. The court had declared that had Ellul told his version of the facts to the investigating inspector and not waited for his trial by jury he would have saved himself and everyone else much trouble. As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeal was practically obliging an accused person to abandon his right to remain silent.

In conclusion Ellul asked the court to declare that his fundamental human rights had been violated by the Court of Criminal Appeal and to provide him with a remedy.

Dr Joseph Brincat signed the application.