Bail conditions are justifiable in a democratic society - court

The Constitutional Court yesterday confirmed a judgment, which had found that the imposition of conditions for the granting of bail did not amount to a human rights violation.

The court heard that John Aquilina and Maria Theresa Camilleri had filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court. Mr Aquilina had been arraigned in the Magistrates' Court and charged with the attempted murder of Martin Polidano.

He had been granted bail on condition that he would not speak to or approach in any manner the witnesses for the prosecution. The accused was also ordered to deposit the sum of Lm3,000 in the Court Registry and to make a personal guarantee of Lm6,000. He had deposited the sum of Lm3,000, which he had told the court belonged to Ms Camilleri.

The Police Commissioner had then claimed that Mr Aquilina had violated the bail conditions and had approached Marlene Aquilina, Mr Polidano's sister. The Magistrates' Court had thus ordered the forfeiture of the sum of Lm3,000 and Mr Aquilina's re-arrest.

Mr Aquilina and Ms Camilleri then filed a constitutional application claiming that the condition imposed upon him was in violation of his fundamental right to freedom of movement.

The First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed the application and Mr Aquilina and Ms Camilleri appealed to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Jusice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

The Constitutional Court said that, in granting bail, a court of criminal judicature was obliged to ensure that there was no danger in so doing. Such court had to ensure, among other factors, that the accused would not interfere in any manner with the evidence to be produced.

The condition imposed upon Mr Aquilina, in the sense that he could not approach certain witnesses, was evidently aimed to ensure that no violation of the evidence or witnesses would take place.

Although Mr Aquilina claimed that such a condition was in violation of his right to freedom of movement, the Constitutional Court disagreed. There was no doubt that the preservation of the integrity of judicial proceedings was a matter of public order. In this case, the bail conditions imposed upon Mr Aquilina were legitimate and justifiable in a democratic society.

The Constitutional Court therefore dismissed the appeal.