Amendments to the Criminal Code currently being debated in Parliament might be tweaked but there will be no major changes, Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg has insisted.
As the debate enters its second week, Dr Borg said he was disappointed that only MPs with a legal background had so far expressed their views.
"I wish to see MPs from both sides of the House who might see the issue from the wider angle, express themselves," Dr Borg told The Times.
The minister defended the Bill insisting it would empower victims and give muscle to the prosecution.
The Labour opposition as well as a Nationalist MP have expressed disagreement on a number of issues. The MLP has made a commitment to repeal, within six months of taking office, provisions that remove the need for corroboration of the evidence given by an accomplice to a crime, restrictions on the granting of bail to repeat offenders accused of serious crime, and limitations being imposed on magistrates on the initiation of inquiries which are not requested by the police or the Attorney General.
Dr Borg defended the amendments, saying that the police were being demoralised and put at a disadvantage because of anomalies in the present system.
"You have dangerous criminals who are being granted bail on the pretext that they are innocent until proven guilty. If we had to use this argument then nobody should be imprisoned pending a trial.
"Some political parties, especially those on the left, think you can't wield law and order while respecting human rights. It's incorrect.
"Is it right for someone to be charged of a hold-up, sentenced to prison, released, and then granted bail after an alleged second offence during which time he proceeds to carry out another hold-up?
"I don't intend interfering with the Courts or urging them to stop granting bail. But we need to protect the credibility of the justice system where serious cases are concerned."
Dr Borg said it was odd for the opposition to describe certain amendments to the Criminal Code as "fascist" when the Labour Party was renowned for adopting a right wing approach where law and order was concerned.
"I believe that prison works. Yes, the rate of serious crime goes down whenever certain individuals are imprisoned. Ultimately, you keep going round the same circles."
Explaining an amendment concerning drug sharing (about which both sides of the House have expressed agreement), Dr Borg said people found to be sharing a very small amount of drugs would not be considered as traffickers and it would no longer be mandatory for a court to send them to prison. It would now be up to the courts to decide if a jail term was justified, after taking all matters into consideration, including any previous convictions. In a repeat offence a jail term would remain mandatory.
Dr Borg said this amendment followed an extensive consultation process, with the government having made sure that the drug issue would not become a political football.
The main amendments are:
¤ Convicted persons in criminal proceedings have to pay judicial costs to the state and damages to the victim of crime;
¤ The mandatory requirement of corroboration of evidence of an accomplice will be eliminated. A judge may, however, warn a jury to treat uncorroborated evidence by an accomplice with caution;
¤ The punishment of imprisonment in criminal libel actions eliminated;
¤ 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 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;
¤ Authorisation of the Chief Justice will be required before magisterial inquiries are held unless they are requested by the police or the Attorney General;
¤ The defence and prosecution may be able to question jurors to decide if they are suitable to serve.