Wide-ranging amendments to the Criminal Code were moved in Parliament yesterday by Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg, who explained that this Bill would strengthen the rights of victims of crime as well as the powers of the prosecution and the authorities in the fight against crime.
The purpose of this Bill, he explained, was to ensure a better and more expeditious administration of justice. Its measures were proposed in a White Paper in January 2005 and had been subject to wide consultations.
The details of the Bill now before the House were explained in detail by the minister at a press conference last week.
The main measures provide that:
¤ The introduction of restrictions to the immediate granting of bail to repeat offenders. When a previously convicted person is arraigned for a second time and accused of a serious crime, he may not be granted bail for three months. Such serious crimes would carry a jail term of over nine years or involve paedophilia, hold-ups or attacks on the elderly. The accused may, however, still file an application before a judge for the granting of bail even within those three months. When the three months elapse the courts may decide whether or not to grant bail.
¤ The payment, by convicted persons in criminal proceedings, of judicial costs to the state and damages to the victim of crime;
¤ The removal of the mandatory requirement of corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice. A judge may, however, warn a jury to treat uncorroborated evidence by an accomplice in a crime with caution.
¤ The elimination of the punishment of imprisonment in criminal libel actions;
¤ Removal of mandatory imprisonment in case of drug sharing.
¤ Children will be required to give evidence and be cross examined only once in criminal cases unless the court feels there are exceptional circumstances which justify the production of the witness again.
¤ Following the compilation of evidence where a court has committed the accused for trial, the court will establish a date for the trial being not earlier than one month but not later than six weeks.
¤ New procedures so that items exhibited in court may be returned to their owners more quickly.
¤ Approval of the Chief Justice will be required before magisterial inquiries are started unless they are requested by the police or the Attorney General.
¤ In the selection of jurors, the defence and prosecution may be able to question jurors in order to decide if they are suitable to serve on a jury.
¤ When magisterial inquiries are not concluded within 60 days, interested persons may, by application, request the magistrate to be heard as witnessed or to hear as witnesses persons indicated in the application.
In his comments on the Bill, Dr Borg said the restrictions on the granting of bail to repeat offenders followed public pressure in view of the way the courts had granted bail in certain serious cases. He said that this provision did not affect the premise that one was presumed innocent until proved guilty, but one could not be too liberal in the interpretation of this presumption. Doing so would mean that there would be no one in prison awaiting trial.
When he explained the amendment involving drug sharing, Dr Borg explained that all such cases to date fell within the category of drug trafficking with a mandatory minimum jail term of six months. Now it would be up to the courts to decide if a jail term was justified, especially when the amount of drug involved was very small, such as when a man shared a joint with his girlfriend. In taking its decision the court had to consider the nature of the drug, the circumstances of the case and the character of the person concerned, including any previous convictions. In a repeat offence a jail term would be mandatory.
Dr Borg said this amendment followed recommendations by the Drug Forum, which included NGOs involved in the drugs sector. He had also consulted the opposition who agreed with this amendment.
Turning to the payment of court costs, Dr Borg said it was manifestly unfair that the state had to pay all court costs when a person was found guilty of a serious crime. In far less serious cases involving private parties, the person who lost a case had to foot the bill.
In terms of this law, the minister would issue a schedule of the court costs which may be imposed on the convicted person.
A system would be gradually introduced for compensation by the state to the victims of serious violent crime where such victims could not sue for compensation, such as when the aggressor was not known. Such compensation will be awarded under a schedule published by the minister.
Dr Borg said he would be moving a further amendment providing that when an application for appeal was filed within the proper timeframes, such an appeal may never be declared null. However, when a prison term would have been imposed, an application for suspension of the execution of the sentence would be required.
Concluding, Dr Borg said these changes were necessary so that while continuing to fight crime according to law and in observance of human rights, the police and the prosecution would have the powers and flexibility they needed according to changing circumstances and in line with similar changes abroad.
These measures, therefore, would also help to strengthen the people's confidence in the administration of justice.