Court rejects plea for Chief Justice not to hear appeal

The Constitutional Court has ruled there is no reason at law why the Chief Justice should abstain from presiding over an appeal filed by a man scheduled to be extradited to Australia over rape allegations.

The ruling was handed down in the case of John Mary Chircop who had asked Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano - who was one of three judges presiding over his appeal - not to hear the appeal because he had already pronounced his opinion on the merits of the case.

Mr Chircop's case goes back to November last year when the Magistrates' Court ruled in favour of his 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 had filed a constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached.

The First Hall dismissed the application ruling that Mr Chircop had other remedies at law. Mr Chircop appealed this decision in the Constitutional Court - presided over by the Chief Justice, sitting with Mr Justice Joseph Camilleri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

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 sitting 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.

Mr Chircop filed a preliminary plea before the Constitutional Court asking the Chief Justice to abstain from the case because he had already pronounced himself on the merits of the case.

He asked that this plea be interpreted in the context of the letter sent by the Chief Justice to the First Hall.

The Constitutional Court -presided over by the Chief Justice - decided the matter in line with the law laying down that, when the court consists of more than one judge, all the judges, including the one objected to, shall decide on the ground of challenge.

The Constitutional Court noted that the law stipulated that "a judge may be challenged or abstain from sitting in a cause...if he had given advice, pleaded or written on the cause or on any other matter connected therewith or dependant thereon".

However, the court ruled, the letter sent to the First Hall by the Chief Justice did not deal with the merits of the case but referred to the management of the case.

In fact, one of the roles of the Chief Justice was to ensure that all cases were managed efficiently. It was also his duty to draw the attention of a judge when a case had to be fast tracked for a valid reason. In this case, Mr Chircop was being detained in preventive custody without the chance of being granted bail (due to the extradition ruling handed down by the Magistrates' Court).

Therefore, the letter sent by the Chief Justice was legitimate and had no negative effect on Mr Chircop's case. Even if, for the sake of argument, Mr Chircop's case had been prejudiced in any way, it would have been because the First Hall, presided over by another judge, had erroneously allowed itself to be influenced.

For these reasons, the court rejected the preliminary plea for the Chief Justice to abstain and ordered the continuation of the appeal.