MP asks judge to abstain from case against hunter

Labour MP Joe Abela has asked a judge to abstain from a court case against a hunter, saying comments which he had made could prejudice the case.

Speaking during the adjournment of the House of Representatives late on Monday, Mr Abela also made a strong attack against the government's treatment of hunters and criticised BirdLife Malta for using public funds to print literature against hunters.

Mr Abela said he was not a hunter himself and had 'great sympathy' for birds', but the House needed to hear both the points of view of environmentalists and hunters.

He said he was concerned recently when he received a pamphlet, published by BirdLife and funded by the EU, asking whether it was right that hunters had taken over the countryside, to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

While it was not true that the hunters had taken over the countryside, or 80 per cent of it as was claimed, was it right that EU funds, which were public funds, were used in this way to incite the people against the hunters? Was this healthy for society?

It was well known, Mr Abela said, that many hunters owned the fields where they went hunting. Did BirdLife expect private property to be open to all?

It was not fair, he said, that the rights of hunters continued to be trampled upon. And not just by BirdLife.

The current state of affairs was such that it was almost better to have a field of cannabis than to have a field where one could go hunting. It was unacceptable in this country that one could buy cannabis everywhere and at any time, but then the special forces were deployed to persecute hunters, stopping them as they walked in the countryside without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This was a violation of people's rights.

Nobody was stopping the people, including tourists, from taking their walks along countryside paths, but one could not expect to have a right to trespass over people's property, Mr Abela said.

He said another example of how rights were trampled was the case of Karl Bugeja, who is facing charges in court of shooting a protected bird.

Even before witnesses were heard and the case was concluded, the judge had told him to either settle or he would suffer even more punishment, Mr Abela said.

This, he insisted, prejudiced the case. How could he not lose the case? Was it possible that the judiciary too was bowing its head to what the government, and ultimately Brussels, wanted? How could the rights of 16,000 hunters be ignored?

Malta was being purer than the virgins in the interpretation of EU law, and it had become the only country where hunters practically could not practise anywhere.

It was important that the courts enjoyed the people's respect, and he was, therefore, requesting Mr Justice Galea Debono to abstain from this case, once it had been prejudiced, Mr Abela said. Mr Bugeja, like any other citizen, expected the courts to be independent of what the government, Brussels, BirdLife or anybody else said.

If the concept of independence was eroded, how could institutions such as the courts enjoy credibility?

Mr Abela said he was, therefore, appealing for independence by the courts and the proper use of public funds, including EU funds.