European Court urges release for Maltese prisoner

The European Court of Human Rights has urged the Maltese authorities to release a man who has been held for more than five years for breaching bail conditions.

The case involves Lawrence Gatt, 63, who has been in prison since 28 July 2006.

Mr Gatt was accused of drug trafficking and granted bail in August 2001. The conditions of bail included a personal guarantee of €23,300 and restrictions on his leaving his place of residence.

Following a complaint that he had been seen in Valletta during his curfew hours, the Criminal Court revoked his bail, ordered him to be re-arrested and to pay the guarantee.

As he was not able to pay, imprisonment-in-default proceedings were brought and, in July 2006, the sum in guarantee was converted into detention at the rate of one day per €11.50, namely two thousand days (or more than five years and six months) imprisonment.

Mr Gatt filed a constitutional complaint which was ultimately dismissed on appeal in February 2008.

Mr Gatt then filed his case before the European Court of Human Rights.

He argued that the conversion into imprisonment of the guarantee he had failed to pay on breaching his bail conditions had been excessive and disproportionate. He particularly highlighted that, under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, no ceiling was placed on the maximum length of detention and that he could not benefit from remission for good behaviour.

In its decision, the European court said there was no dispute that Mr Gatt's detention, as ordered by the Maltese courts, had been lawful.

However, the Court considered that Mr Gatt, who had been under strict bail conditions for nearly five years - presumably without being able to earn a living - could not realistically have been expected to comply with the court order and fulfil the relevant obligation, and that, in the circumstances, his detention, especially taking into account its duration, had been disproportionate.

In particular, Maltese law and its application in Mr Gatt's case had been deficient in two respects: it had made no distinction between a breach of bail conditions related to the primary purpose of bail (ie appearance at trial) and other considerations of a less serious nature such as a curfew, and it had not applied a ceiling on the duration of detention, nor had it made any assessment of proportionality.

Thus, it had failed to strike a balance between the importance in a democratic society of securing the fulfilment of the obligation in question and the importance of the right to freedom.

The court therefore held that, given that Mr Gatt had been in detention since July 2006, it was recommending that Malta consider his immediate release.