Drug case suspect claims rights violation

A man charged with involvement in the importation of seven kilogrammes of heroin yesterday filed an application claiming his rights were being breached as he would be tried over the same matter twice.

Joseph Lebrun asked the Magistrates' Court to refer his concerns and complaints to the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

Mr Lebrun's legal battle started in September 2005 when he was arraigned and charged with conspiring to deal in heroin and importing and trafficking the drug on and before June 6, 2005.

In November 2005, the Magistrates' Court declared there were not sufficient reasons for Mr Lebrun's indictment and cleared him of all charges.

Then, in December of that year, the Attorney General filed a warrant of arrest, on the strength of article 433 of the Criminal Code, in which he contested the acquittal. This meant his case was to continue in the Magistrates' Court.

(Article 433 lays down that the Attorney General could issue a warrant for the arrest of any person discharged by the Magistrates' Court if the Attorney General and a judge agreed there were sufficient grounds for an indictment to be filed against that person.)

Mr Lebrun then filed his first constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court saying that the Attorney General's actions were in breach of his right to a fair hearing.

In June 2006, the First Hall ruled that his rights were not breached.

He then took his case to the Constitutional Court and in February this year it declared that article 433 was likely to breach a person's right to a fair hearing.

The Constitutional Court froze Mr Lebrun's case for three months and ruled that unless there was "no procedure of revision", the court's decision of November 2005 should hold.

(On the strength of that ruling, on April 16 Cabinet approved a memo by the Justice Minister to amend article 433. A week later, the House of Representatives approved a Bill amending the Criminal Code.)

Since then the case of Mr Lebrun continued and the Magistrates' Court ruled there were sufficient grounds for his indictment.

This decision followed the November 2005 ruling by the Magistrates' Court that there were not sufficient grounds for his indictment, a decision, he argued, that could only be contested on appeal.

Mr Lebrun was now contending that this was in breach of his right "not to be tried or punished twice" as laid down in the European Convention. He asked the Magistrates' Court to refer the matter to the First Hall in a constitutional reference.

Lawyers Joseph Giglio, Franco Debono and José Herrera are appearing for Mr Lebrun.