Opposition justice spokesman Anglu Farrugia has urged the governemnt to work with the opposition on a revision of a number of clauses in the Criminal Code (amendment) Bill.
He, however, welcomed an amendment removing the mandatory requirement of imprisonment for persons found guilty of sharing drugs.
Dr Farrugia told Parliament that this amendment, about which both sides of the House agreed, did not mean any easing of the fight against drugs.
It meant, however, an end to injustices where young first offenders were sent to prison just for sharing one joint on the pretext that they were trafficking.
Indeed, the situation had been such that police interrogators had pressed suspects to admit to sharing one pill so that they could then accuse them of trafficking, artificially inflating arraignment figures.
Dr Farrugia said that like the other members of the Opposition and even members of the government, he strongly disagreed with the provisions of the Bill limiting bail for repeat offenders, removing the need for corroboration of evidence by an accomplice and restricting the authority of magistrates to hold inquiries. These three clauses would be repealed in one of the first laws which a Labour government would move.
Dr Farrugia said he agreed with Labour MP Adrian Vassallo (who spoke before him) that there was a need to introduce a sentencing policy, even in the way the courts considered bail applications.
But this did not mean magistrates should be stripped of their competence to consider bail applications by repeat offenders accused of serious crime.
These clauses, he said, needed drastic revision and he hoped that the government would work with the opposition in the committee stage for such revision to take place. Otherwise one could have a situation where, for example, the removal of the need for corroboration of evidence by accomplices opened the door for legal frame-ups.
That a magistrate could not launch an inquiry unless authorised by the Chief Justice, save for cases based on a report by the police or the Attorney General smacked of lack of confidence in the magistrates by the government. This amendment was also restricting the right of private individuals to file reports that could lead to the launching of an inquiry.
The Labour MP said that while he agreed with the removal of liability for a prison term in cases of criminal libel, it was the duty of journalists to be responsible. They should not abuse of freedom of expression to destroy somebody's character.
In his speech Dr Farrugia criticised the fact that this was an "omnibus" Bill which amended several laws at one go, arguing that this should not be the way how Parliament amended legislation.
Adrian Vassallo (MLP) said the people wanted justice to be truly done both with the perpetrators and with the victims of crime. Justice had to be done and seen to be done. This was perhaps the biggest problem in the country.
In many cases reported in the newspapers one came away with the feeling that justice was not being meted out as one would have wished.
Several court sentences had shocked many people. Particularly worrying was the way suspended sentences and probation orders had been handed down to persons convicted of serious crime including the corruption of minors.
There had been instances where somebody convicted of a hold-up and another who had driven a car at relatives got away with a suspended sentence.
While one needed to be careful that no injustice was committed by sending an innocent person to prison, there needed to be more consistency in court judgments, and a sentencing policy was therefore called for.