A constitutional application filed by a foreigner facing a criminal trial on drug trafficking charges has been dismissed by Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef who found that the man's fundamental human rights had not been violated.

Claudio Porsenna filed his application against the Attorney General saying that his right to a fair trial could be violated and that he was being discriminated against.

The court heard that on May 3, 2003 a man, who was suspected of drug related charges, had given a statement to the police in which he had mentioned Mr Porsenna.

The man was arraigned in court on the following day to answer to these charges.

In the following September the AG had ordered that the man's case be heard by the Magistrates Court as a court of Criminal Judicature. He was found guilty by that court and jailed for one year. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to six months.

On May 4, 2003 Mr Porsenna was also arraigned in court on charges connected with drug trafficking, possession and sale.

A certain Aaron Rodney Pavia had also been arrested. A bill of indictment for the two men to face trial by jury in the Criminal Court was issued in October 2007.

In his constitutional application, Mr Porsenna said that he had suffered human rights violations.

The law did not stipulate before which court an accused person had to be tried, and the discretionary powers of the AG to decide upon which court was to be used were against his human rights.

He also claimed that he and other persons implicated in the alleged facts of the case were not being treated in the same manner.

But the court ruled that the fundamental human right to a fair hearing regulated the manner in which a judicial process was conducted before a court.

It did not regulate the manner in which a person was allocated to a particular court.

A person facing charges before the Criminal Court was entitled to the same human rights guarantees as a person charged before a magistrates court.

The fact that the AG was entitled to decide which court an accused person was to be dealt with did not mean that the AG was acting as a judge. The AG had no control over the eventual decision as to guilt or innocence of the accused person.

Mr Justice Micallef added that Mr Porsenna's allegation of discrimination, based upon the fact that he and the man had been treated differently, did not result.

The AG had based his decision to submit Mr Porsenna to a trial by jury on the fact that it appeared to be the case that Mr Porsenna was the brains behind the drug dealing.

On the other hand it appeared to be the case that the other man was a drug mule.

The AG's decision to submit the latter man's case to the Magistrates Court was therefore not discriminatory.

The Court therefore proceeded to dismiss Mr Porsenna's application.