The otherwise very balanced and informative leader in The Times (Quashed Trials and Legal Rights, January 24) calls for one or two clarifications. The Times says that it took Brian Vella almost two years to stand trial again after his first trial by jury was quashed and that the law does not give such trials precedence over the most recent ones in the list of pending cases. The legal maxim "justice delayed, justice denied" was also mentioned.

In this particular case the interval between the first trial and the second one was due to the following factors. Immediately after his first trial was dissolved, Mr Vella filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction claiming that his right to a fair trial had been breached by the Criminal Court's ruling dissolving the first trial. This case was decided by the Civil Court on November 24, 2004 against Mr Vella.

The latter appealed to the Constitutional Court, composed of three judges, which rejected his appeal on July 12, 2005. As soon as the constitutional appeal was decided against Mr Vella and the case could be proceeded with, the Criminal Court appointed the trial to be held anew on November 3, 2005, giving it priority over some 30 other cases.

However, a few weeks before the appointed date, the Attorney General requested the Criminal Court to effect some alterations to the bill of indictment.

When the Criminal Court, in an urgent session, decided to uphold the Attorney General's request, Mr Vella himself requested an adjournment of the case from the appointed date November 3, 2005. The Criminal Court granted Mr Vella's request and again adjourned the case to the first available date, being January 9, 2006 giving it absolute priority.

The new trial has now again been given top priority and been appointed for hearing on June 5, 2006 the earliest possible date when it could be held without disrupting the schedule of trials by jury already appointed for hearing.