Labour MP Joe Brincat has promised to challenge in court a clause in the Criminal Code (amendment) Bill which will restrict the immediate granting of bail for repeat offenders accused of serious crime.

He told Parliament that this clause went against the presumption of innocence and contrasted sharply with decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court in Strasbourg.

Like other speakers from both sides of the House, Dr Brincat said he agreed with many parts of this Bill, but he was objecting to other sections.

The first part of the Bill, for example, rightly raised the punishment for offences carried out for racial or religious reasons. Still, he pointed out, crime could also be the result of one's sexual orientation. This had already happened in Malta, such as attacks against homosexuals.

Dr Brincat said he agreed with the thrust of provisions reducing the need for children to give court evidence, although the measure as drafted in the Bill may be too restricted. The Bill was saying that the evidence by a child would be filmed to be shown in subsequent stages of the court process without the child being required to take the witness stand again.

Ideally, Dr Brincat said, filming should be introduced for all trials because a transcript could give different impressions than if one listened and watched the way evidence was given.

The Bill was also saying that at the end of the compilation of evidence, when the magistrate decided there were grounds for a trial, the court was to establish a date for the trial to start not earlier than one month but not later than six weeks from the date of adjournment. But how would the court know the diary of the attorney general?

He felt there should be a term of three months within which a magistrate should conclude the compilation of evidence and one should remove the need to request an extension from the President. Such an extension should be requested from the Chief Justice.

Dr Brincat said he was strongly against the measure requiring magistrates to seek authorisation from the Chief Justice to hold inquiries, unless they were based on a complaint by the police or the Attorney General.

One of the problems with such a procedure was that the Chief Justice could end up authorising an inquiry over a case which he may later be required to judge. Thus the Chief Justice would have already pronounced himself by deciding whether or not there were sufficient grounds for an investigation.

The minister was also trying to introduce the concept that certain documents in the compilation of evidence could be taken as read. Although he agreed with this, it could be in breach of the Constitution article 39 (6) on provisions to secure protection of law.

Dr Brincat said the new measure denying repeat offenders the opportunity to request bail for three months was unconstitutional and he would challenge it in court should it ever become law. A person had to be presumed innocent until proven guilty even if he was a repeat offender. Therefore everyone had to have the opportunity to request bail and magistrates should have the authority to decide such applications on the basis of the case.

This measure went against clear decisions of the Maltese Constitutional Court and the European Court.

The Constitutional Court had already struck down a law providing that the compilation of evidence against a drug trafficker should be completed within 20 days and no bail could be given. But the minister had not acted to remedy the situation.

Interjecting, Justice Minister Tonio Borg said this provision applied only to repeat offenders accused of serious crimes, and they would still have a right to apply for bail before a judge of the superior courts.

Dr Brincat said it was a magistrate who should decide how to proceed.

On the clause removing the need for corroboration of evidence given by an accomplice, Dr Brincat said it was true that UK law now accepted such evidence, but one needed to be careful and introduce safeguards. One should also examine the situation in Italy where the pentiti were accusing each other all the time.

Clearly this Bill would have to be examined in detail in the committee stage, Dr Brincat concluded.