Accused has right for bail

By denying bail, the criminal courts violated the human rights of a man charged with drug importation and trafficking, the First Hall of the Civil Court has ruled.

In a constitutional application against the Attorney General, Paschalino Cefai, a foreigner married to a Maltese woman, said he appeared before the Magistrates’ Court last March on charges of importation and trafficking of cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

He had repeatedly asked to be released on bail but his requests were constantly denied. Mr Cefai said he had filed four requests for release on bail before the Magistrates’ Court and another four before the Criminal Court.

The courts had refused bail on grounds that there was a fear that Mr Cefai would abscond from the country and also in view of the seriousness of the crimes with which he had been charged.

Mr Justice Tonio Mallia declared that an accused person was entitled to bail unless there were certain dangers. The law spoke of a danger that an accused person would not appear before the courts or that he would abscond from the country. There was also the possibility that an accused person would not obey court orders or that s/he would tamper with the evidence. The limitations of the right to bail were not, of themselves, a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of the individual. The courts had to see whether the refusal of bail was reasonable and necessary in the light of all the circumstances of the case.

Case law of the European Court of Human Rights had found that continued detention could be justified only if there were specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest, which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the right to individual liberty.

Mr Cefai had certainly been charged with very serious crimes and his temporary detention without bail was not unreasonable.

However, last July, the prosecution had declared that it had no further evidence to produce and Mr Cefai had still remained in preventive custody. Eight months had lapsed since Mr Cefai’s arraignment and the court found that there no longer existed valid reasons for him to be denied bail.

The court, concluded that Mr Cefai’s continued detention after the lapse of eight months was in violation of his human rights. Mr Justice Mallia added that there was no need for the court to provide for financial remuneration. It was sufficient that Mr Cefai could once again apply for bail before the appropriate court of criminal jurisdiction.