Bail limits proposed

The government is considering making the granting of bail more restrictive, Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg told The Times.

The proposal will be discussed by the Cabinet over the coming weeks following concern that repeat offenders are being granted bail only to continue with their criminal activities before being nabbed again.

When a person is charged under arrest in court the defence usually requests bail, which means that the accused is allowed to go on with his or her life, under certain court-imposed conditions.

The conditions usually include being at home at night, signing every so often at the nearest police station, not speaking to witnesses and paying a deposit which would be forfeited if the bail conditions are broken.

However, the courts often grant persons bail when they are arraigned on serious crimes even when they are already out on bail on other charges.

There have been instances when bail conditions were broken and the courts decided to give the accused yet another chance.

Bail has also been given to people charged with drug trafficking. Previously, when a person was charged with drug dealing and could face compilation proceedings, no bail could be granted until the passage of 20 days.

But after this provision of the law was challenged by a drug trafficker, the Constitutional Court declared that bail could be granted even once a person is first arraigned.

The courts are also seen as being inconsistent in the way they grant bail, with some magistrates being tough and others tending to be lenient.

Dr Borg said the Ministry's intention was to make it more difficult for recidivists and repeat offenders to be allowed out on bail.

"The deterrent of prison has to be there and there have been cases in the past when the period spent in preventive custody spurred people to change their ways," Dr Borg said.

The changes in the law are also a message that one can't commit a crime and expect to keep getting away with it, Dr Borg said.

In a bid to be able to nail criminals, the government has already proposed that the evidence given by an accomplice should not be instantly excluded, even if it is not corroborated by other evidence. The judge or jury would have to evaluate such evidence and, if it is considered credible, it would be accepted as evidence.

"This is the position in almost all EU countries including English law which is the main source of our criminal procedure rules," Dr Borg said.

Sources said that the police have been arguing that a person charged twice for a similar offence should not be granted bail and he should be remanded in custody, at least until the evidence against him is heard.

As the law stands, bail is not meant to be given in cases where there is a fear that the accused will fail to appear in court, abscond, fail to observe the conditions imposed by the court or interfere with witnesses.

Bail is also rejected if a person is accused of a crime against the safety of the government or if a person is accused of a crime for which life imprisonment is contemplated.

The court can refuse bail if it is satisfied that the accused "will commit any other offence".

But legal sources said this phrase should be changed because it presumes that an accused person will be guilty in a forthcoming case.

"It would be much better if this were changed to read that a person who stands accused on another crime punishable by imprisonment should not be granted bail," the sources said.