Civil Court rejects human rights violation claim

A constitutional application filed by British national Mark Charles Kenneth Stephens against the Attorney General was yesterday dismissed by Mr Justice Tonio Mallia, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Mr Stephens, who had connections with Malta, had been extradited to Malta from Spain to face charges of associating himself in crimes connected with drugs.

In his constitutional application he claimed that his fundamental human rights, as protected by the European Convention of Human Rights, had been violated.

He argued that, following his extradition, he had immediately raised the plea of the lack of jurisdiction of the local courts. However, the Magistrates' Court had declared that his arrest had been regularly carried out.

Mr Stephens then filed a constitutional case which was decided upon in November 2004. In that case, the court declared it would address the issue of jurisdiction, as the matter had to be decided upon by a court of criminal jurisdiction.

According to Mr Stephens, the failure of the Magistrates' Court, as a court of criminal inquiry, was in violation of his rights to a fair hearing for such court had to rule not only on factual issues but also on legal issues. The plea as to the jurisdiction ought therefore to have been decided upon explicitly, but this had not been the case.

Mr Stephens added that the Magistrates' Court had abstained from ruling on this plea on the basis that the powers of the court in that stage were practically limited to the compilation of evidence. However, he pointed out that by ruling that he was to face a trial by jury, the Magistrates' Court had decided upon the issue of jurisdiction in an implicit manner.

He added that his plea as to the jurisdiction, coupled with the fact that he had been charged (and might eventually be found guilty) on the basis of facts which were not crimes in terms of Maltese law, were two connected items. The prosecution had charged Mr Stephens with conspiracy in drug trafficking. This crime, according to law, was of an instantaneous nature, in the sense that agreement alone to commit the crime constituted the crime. However, the prosecution had not declared where the said agreement had taken place, namely whether it was in Spain or in Malta.

Mr Justice Mallia declared that Mr Stephens was complaining that he had been deprived of his liberty even though the Magistrates' Court had abstained from deciding upon his plea regarding jurisdiction. The court declared that it was not in agreement with this argument. An individual charged before the courts while under arrest was entitled to contest the validity of the arrest and the decision taken by the court. Such a person was also entitled to request freedom from arrest, while the courts were entitled to rule on such request.

However, Mr Stephens was alleging that once the Magistrates' Court could not decide upon the issue of jurisdiction, then the same court was effectively impeded from deciding upon the legality of his detention.

Mr Justice Mallia found that if a court was empowered to rule upon the legality of an arrest, it did not have to examine the merits of the case. Any plea raised by an accused person could lead to the release of such person, but this had to take place after the judicial process was completed. The court before which a person was arraigned under arrest was to ensure that the arrest was procedurally valid and according to law, and would then decide whether or not to grant release on bail.

The Magistrates' Court, in the inquiry stage, was bound to hear the evidence produced. It was not the role of such a court to decide upon guilt or innocence, as this was an issue reserved for courts of criminal jurisdiction before which pleas of a legal nature could be raised. The fact that decisions of a legal nature were reserved for the second stage of the criminal process was not in violation of the European Convention, the judge ruled.

Referring to Mr Stephens' complaint that he had not been released, the court said this was obviously an issue of great importance. However, once the accused could contest his continued detention, the fact that the law allowed for the examination of the case at a later stage did not amount to a violation of his fundamental rights.

The investigations carried out by a court before which a person was arraigned under arrest were not into the merits of the case but constituted a judicial review to verify whether the detention was valid or otherwise. The law provided that such review could take place from time to time.

Mr Justice Mallia declared that the Constitutional Court had, when deciding upon Mr Stephens' previous case, ruled that his arrest had been valid and in accordance to law.

The court therefore dismissed Mr Stephens' constitutional application.