Convicted thief claims illegal arrest after appeal

A Georgian man convicted for theft has been in jail for "double the time" he was sentenced to and is still in prison pending a decision on his appeal.

His lawyer argued yesterday the situation amounted to illegal arrest.

Ladislav Mironich, 29, was jailed for 13 months on Monday after he was found guilty of stealing a laptop, two mobile phones, holding three people against their will and handling stolen property.

Only, he has already been in prison, in preventive custody, since December 22, 2008.

Last year, Mr Mironich requested bail and it was granted but he had no money to pay the bail bond and so had to remain behind bars.

Defence lawyer Joe Brincat yesterday filed an urgent application in court seeking to have his client immediately released. The case was heard yesterday afternoon.

Dr Brincat argued that the time Mr Mironich had served equated to "double" the period he would actually have spent in prison. With remission for good behaviour, a prison year is reduced to eight months, so Mr Mironich's 13 months would have been equivalent to just over eight months. Yet, he has been behind bars for 17 months.

The continued detention of his client, who wanted to clear his name, amounted to illegal arrest, the lawyer insisted.

His client should not be made to apply for bail again to be released and he did not want to, Dr Brincat added.

Article 416 of the Criminal Code, he explained, stated that bail was to be requested if the prison sentence had not yet been served. But it was "illogical" to expect someone who had already served his punishment, and had the right to appeal, to obtain release by paying a sum of money.

Lawyer Jason Grima, from the Attorney General's Office, argued that the law was clear on this point. When someone appealed a judgment, that judgment was suspended pending decision by the Appeals Court.

Dr Brincat was logical in his arguments but he was also subject to law and the law of procedure laid down that his client should be kept under arrest until the decision was made because his jail term could be reduced or increased.

Article 416, as referred to by Dr Brincat, did not differentiate between someone who still had to serve a jail term and someone who had already done so; it was generic, Dr Grima said.

Magistrate Lawrence Quintano is expected to decide on the matter today.