Attorney General astounded by rape suspect's interference claims

The Attorney General admitted he was astounded by claims made by a man, scheduled to be extradited to Australia over rape allegations, that there had been interference in his case.

Last week, John Mary Chircop, 41, filed an appeal in the Constitutional Court claiming that correspondence was exchanged behind his back when letters were sent by the Chief Justice and the Commission for the Administration of Justice urging the judge presiding over his case to "hasten" the proceedings.

The Attorney General filed a reply yesterday noting that he was astounded by such a claim because the letters were sent to ensure that the case of Mr Chircop, who had been under arrest for 16 months to date, would be heard within a reasonable time. In November last year, the Magistrates' Court ruled in favour of Mr Chircop's extradition to Victoria, Australia, where he is wanted for allegedly assaulting and raping a 14-year-old girl between November 1, 2003 and September 8, 2004.

He then filed a constitutional application, in the First Hall of the Civil Court, claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached by the magistrate presiding over the extradition proceedings.

The First Hall dismissed the application ruling that Mr Chircop had other remedies at law. He could have filed and appeal but he did not.

Mr Chircop then appealed the decision of the First Hall (dismissing his constitutional application) in the Constitutional Court.

He claimed there was interference in the judicial process when the Chief Justice and the Commission for the Administration of Justice sent letters to the judge in the First Hall, telling him to "hasten" the case.

He also insisted that his right to a fair hearing had been breached due to procedural flaws in the Magistrates' Court.

"Who was contributing to prejudice the person to be extradited? Was it the Attorney General who insisted that the proceedings were hastened? Was it the commission that wanted to know what measures were taken to speed up the proceedings? Was it the Chief Justice who drew the First Hall's attention to the fact that cases that were of a constitutional nature and where a person was under arrest ought to be 'fast tracked'? Or was it the defence counsel who remained placid and satisfied after they chose not to appeal the decision of the Magistrates' Court and leave their client under arrest," the Attorney General asked in his reply.

He added that, once Mr Chircop was claiming that his rights had been breached through procedural flaws of the Magistrates' Court, this should have been raised in an appeal that was never filed within the term allowed by law. Lawyers Cynthia Scerri Debono and Donatella Frendo Dimech signed the Attorney General's reply.