Man contests magistrate's impartiality

A Briton charged with drug conspiracy has filed an application arguing that his state of arrest is illegal and contesting a magistrates' ruling on the grounds that it could not have been impartial.

Lawyer Joseph Brincat filed the application in the Criminal Court on behalf of his client Mark Charles Kenneth Stephens whose legal battle started when he was extradited from Spain to Malta last September 10 to face drug charges.

In a ruling last September 29, Magistrate Jacqueline Padovani Grima decided there were sufficient reasons for Mr Stephens' indictment.

In that same ruling the magistrate abstained from pronouncing herself on the matter of jurisdiction brought up by Mr Stephens who claimed that the Maltese courts could not hear his case.

Mr Stephens, insisting that the magistrate was to decide on the matter of jurisdiction, took his case to the higher court and, in a judgment handed down on February 14, the Constitutional Court ruled that the magistrate ought to have decided upon the plea on jurisdiction within the context of its decision as to whether there were sufficient reasons for a bill of indictment to be issued against Mr Stephens.

The Constitutional Court revoked the Magistrates' Court's decree and sent the case back to the magistrate.

Magistrate Padovani Grima this time had to decide on the matter of jurisdiction and on whether there were sufficient reasons for Mr Stephens' indictment.

On February 23, the magistrate ruled that the Maltese courts had jurisdiction over Mr Stephens' case and, for the second time, she ruled there were sufficient reasons for his indictment.

She also dismissed a request for her to abstain from hearing the case against Mr Stephens who had challenged her impartiality to decide on the matter once she had already pronounced herself in the ruling of September 29.

Following this decree, Mr Stephens took his case before Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, sitting the Criminal Court, where he filed an application claiming that his state of arrest was illegal. This was because Magistrate Padovani Grima's decision not to abstain from hearing his case was in breach of the law.

Dr Brincat noted that the magistrate had already pronounced herself on the merits in issue and therefore could not have been impartial.

Assistant Attorney General Anthony Barbara disagreed, arguing that the magistrate had acted in line with the law as she was completely competent of removing herself from a previous decision.

The Chief Justice will decide on the application this afternoon.