Norman Lowell wins Constitutional court case
The Constitutional Court today upheld an application by Norman Lowell who had complained that he was denied the right to appeal a conviction because of a procedural technicality.
Mr Lowell had wanted to appeal from a conviction of inciting racial hatred. He was arraigned in 2006 and two years later was condemned to a suspended jail term.
The Constitutional Court composed of Acting Chief Justice Geoffrey Valenzia, Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Justice Tonio Mallia found that although technically Mr Lowell had not followed the requirements laid down by the law, by not briefly indicating the facts of the case, the same facts were spread across the appeal application.
The Appeals Court also had before it the 117-page long judgement of the first court where all the facts and procedures were described, the Constitutional Court said.
Therefore the spirit of the law should prevail over the technicalities, as the facts resulted from the acts of court.
Mr Lowell could not be denied the right to appeal because of a technicality and the case needed to be decided on the basis of its merits.
The decision of the Appeals Court to throw out Mr Lowell's appeal was a breach of his rights, and the appeal should therefore be heard, the Constiuttional Court said.
Mr Lowell was ordered to pay all court costs since he was the once who had not briefly explained the facts of the case as required.
Mr Lowell last year complained about the time it was taking for the Constitutional Court to reach its decision. On September 6 he said that judgement had been pending for over a year but had been put off four times, without reason being given.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
malcolm seychell
Feb 28th 2011, 20:36
Good Luck Norman.
Bonello David
Feb 28th 2011, 17:30
@ Mr Andrew borg Cardona; The TRUTH always Prevail. After all justice is for everyone. This is no expose for racist rambling like you said, its freedom of speech, for everybody, including YOU!!!!! Denying justice to someone over a technical fault makes no sense. @ Kenneth Cassar; No not only Mr Lowell won the right to appeal, every Maltese citizen did. A VERY INTERESTING JUDGEMENT INDEED.......
edward vella
Feb 28th 2011, 16:59
On September 6 he said that judgement had been pending for over a year but had been put off four times, without reason being given.
Typical of some Maltese judges.
Melvyn Mifsud LLD
Feb 28th 2011, 15:08
An interesting judgement.
Procedural law interpreted in the light of the actual law. Whilst understanding the Criminal Court of Appeal in it's judgement, I embrace this Constitutional judgement as a milestone as regards to the rights of an accused.
This is the another step and way forward ... and understand that it may have a ripple effect on other appeals that were thrown out on similiar circumstances.
Andrew Borg-Cardona
Feb 28th 2011, 14:39
Oh well, yet another opportunity for racist rambling to be exposed.
Eric Soames
Feb 28th 2011, 16:20
Plenty of ramblings by plenty of others to go round. Some may well be perceived to be annoying but no voice should be stifled. A principle, I would have thought, close to any lawyer's heart.
E. MUSCAT
Feb 28th 2011, 14:16
We read very often when people are set free because of 'a technical' point'. I will not enter in the merit of the validity or legality of it.. But I will appreciate if it is made official that it will be normal procedure in cases of a technical fault. Otherwise it leaves room for abuses. This is not because it involves Norman Lowell.
D. Scerri
Feb 28th 2011, 14:53
So you agree that it's okay to deny someone justice on a technicality?
Martin Abela
Feb 28th 2011, 14:06
Everyone should be free to speak his mind. Mr Lowell speaks for no less than 3,637 people who voted for him in the last MEP elections which is no joke considering that MPs are sometimes elected to parlaiment with much less. Mr Lowell should be given a voice for his ideas represent those of many Maltese and thousands of other fellow Eurpoeans.
Mario Borg
Feb 28th 2011, 13:40
Here is one man who is never proved a liar unlike his opponents who will now be squirming and scribbling more empty rhetoric on their own blogs.
Kenneth Cassar
Feb 28th 2011, 15:03
Get a grip...he only won the right to an appeal.