The First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday upheld a constitutional application filed by Noel Grech and ruled that applicant's fundamental human right to a fair hearing had been violated by a judgment delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal on October 28 last year.
Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef heard the submissions made by Mr Grech that his fundamental human rights had been violated during the course of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.
Mr Grech claimed that the Court of Criminal Appeal had found him guilty, following an appeal filed by the Attorney General, even though the grounds of appeal had been withdrawn by the Attorney General.
The court heard that on June 19, 2004, Mr Grech and another person had appeared before the Magistrates' Court on prostitution-related charges. Mr Grech had admitted to the charges against him and on July 15, 2004 the Magistrates' Court, as a court of criminal judicature, had sentenced him to two years imprisonment suspended for four years and fined him Lm200.
The Police Commissioner had appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeal had appointed the case for hearing on September 30, 2004. It was then put off for oral submissions to October 14. On that date the Attorney General had withdrawn the first ground of his appeal while declaring there was another ground of appeal, namely that the first court had failed to impose an effective prison sentence.
Mr Grech's lawyer had submitted that no other ground of appeal existed in this case.
In its judgment, delivered on October 28, 2004, the Court of Criminal Appeal had confirmed the fine imposed on Mr Grech but had revoked the suspended sentence and instead sentenced him to three years imprisonment.
When examining the appeal filed by the Police Commissioner before the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Justice Micallef declared that the court had to establish how many grounds of appeal had been lodged by the Police Commissioner.
The application of appeal appeared to contain only one ground, namely that the Court of Magistrates could not, in the circumstances of the case, impose a suspended sentence.
The court declared that the Attorney General had listed, as grounds of appeal, the provisions of sections 413(1)(c) and 413(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, in that order.
These provisions contained the enabling provision of law that allowed the Attorney General to appeal from a judgment and the ground that the court could not have imposed a suspended sentence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal had, in its judgment, entered into the merits of whether the Attorney General had in fact renounced to all grounds of appeal. However, the First Hall of the Civil Court noted that if one considered the order in which the Attorney General had listed his grounds of appeal, then it was obvious that the Attorney General had withdrawn the grounds as listed in section 413(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
The Court of Criminal Appeal had concluded in its judgment that the Attorney General had no right of appeal on the grounds listed in section 413(1)(b)(iii) and could not lodge an appeal on this basis.
The First Hall of the Civil Court declared that while not every procedural error constituted a violation of the right to a fair hearing, there was such a violation if the accused was placed under a disadvantage in presenting his defence.
In this case Mr Grech had been disadvantaged and the court concluded that his fundamental human right to a fair hearing had been violated.
The court ordered the revocation of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal and ordered that Mr Grech was to be placed in the same situation as that pertaining after the Court of Magistrates had delivered its judgment.