Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri in the First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday dismissed a constitutional application filed against the Attorney General.

Brian Godfrey Bartolo claimed in his application that he had not received a fair trial when he had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on drug importation charges.

Mr Bartolo declared that he had been arraigned in court on these charges together with other persons.

Before the Criminal Court one of his co-accused admitted to the charges, which were identical to those raised against Mr Bartolo, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months.

The court had also imposed a fine upon the co-accused, which fine was convertible to six months imprisonment.

The newspapers had commented about this case and had claimed that this was not a severe penalty.

When Mr Bartolo admitted to the charges brought against him, the presiding judge had sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and had imposed a fine upon him that was convertible to two years imprisonment.

Two more of the co-accused were also sentenced to less severe penalties than Mr Bartolo.

Mr Bartolo claimed that he had not been given a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, as the judge was influenced by external factors, including reports in the media.

He requested the court to provide him with a remedy consisting in the reduction of his prison sentence.

Mr Justice Cuschieri noted in his judgment that Mr Bartolo attributed the discrepancy in the penalty he had received, when compared to his other co-accused, to the comments that had been published in the newspapers in the sense that the penalty imposed upon the first of the co-accused to be tried had been slight.

He submitted that the judge had been unduly influenced by these comments, and added that prior to delivering judgment the judge had chastised the journalists who were present in the court room about the published comments.

The court added that the discretion given by law to judges in the criminal court was not to be exercised in an arbitrary manner but was to be related to the circumstances of the case and based on legal principles.

On the other hand, there were subjective elements in the exercise of this discretion, which subjectivity had to be exercised in a reasonable and just manner.

Each case, said the court, had to be decided upon its own merits, and each of the accused had to be judged and sentenced in accordance with the nature of the criminal activity he had carried out.

Other factors to be taken into consideration were whether or not the accused had co-operated with the police and other personal circumstances.

It was therefore possible for two co-accused to be treated differently in the manner in which they were sentenced.

The fact that comments had been published in the newspapers did not necessarily mean that the judge had decided Mr Bartolo's case without the required objectivity and impartiality.

It resulted that the presiding judge had openly and clearly shown that he was not going to remain passive about the comments published.

The court concluded by dismissing Mr Bartolo's application.