Minister will not oppose making Presidential pardons public

Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici has no objections to making public details of Presidential pardons, a spokesman for the ministry told The Sunday Times.

"The minister is not in principle against this proposal (of making them public). However, a public and legal debate on the matter would be a healthy exercise which could lead to such a change," the spokesman said.

In a recent interview, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano said the public should be told why Presidential pardons have been granted.

Figures released by the Home Affairs Ministry last July show that 339 Presidential pardons were granted between 2003 and 2008 - a rate of more than one a week.

Presidential pardons have been part of Malta's legal system for decades. It is a practice which follows closely the principles of the Queen's Pardon which exists in the English legal system and which is reflected in Malta's Constitution.

The Chief Justice said that Presidential pardons should only be used in exceptional cases. However, he said that the failure to disclose the reasons behind them concerned him since this meant the system could be abused.

According to the ministry, 90 per cent of Presidential pardons relate to VAT amnesties.

Asked why VAT issues account for such a high figure, and why amnesties should be granted for what is still an illegal act, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said:

"The matter of amnesties being granted for VAT offences is now governed by VAT law. The law's provisions state that such 'petitions' are decided by the Courts of Justice if, and after an application is filed within a month. This applies to new convictions, not for old ones, and this explains the figure."

Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg - who was justice minister in the previous legislature and sponsored the move to transfer responsibility for VAT pardons from the executive to the courts - told The Sunday Times that the figure of Presidential pardons should not in any way give the impression that 339 convicted prisoners were released onto the streets.

"Around 90 per cent of these pardons were issued in relation to pecuniary penalties (as opposed to fines) following VAT offences proceedings; in fact where an offender is fined following the commission of a VAT offence the court also imposes a daily penalty if the offender does not fulfil his obligations."

When the offender fulfils the obligation and pays the fine imposed, he usually seeks a remittance of the per diem penalty, the minister said.

In non-serious offences, the Finance Ministry, following verification that the offender has fulfilled his obligations, then recommends to the Justice Ministry to retain the fine and reduce the penalty to 10 per cent of the original sum.

However, legal sources criticised the use of the Presidential pardon in this way, saying VAT offences were as much a transgression of the law as other offences.

The sources also said the Presidential pardon should not be used - as it had been in these cases - as a carrot and a stick to ensure VAT offenders settled their dues after they had been fined by the courts.

In only three out of 339 cases, were sentences of imprisonment reduced owing to illness or serious error of judgment by the courts and only following written advice by the Attorney General supporting such reduction.

Dr Borg said: "I also take pride in the fact that during my tenure of office as Minister of Justice no general amnesties were issued to prisoners or offenders in spite of several important and historical occurrences taking place during such period."