Personal liberty ‘is the rule not the exception’

C Muscat

Aug 22nd 2012, 16:19

Mr Justice Anthony Ellul earlier this month ruled the authorities had denied a Nigerian man his rights by insisting on a €6,000 bail pledge when he could manifestly not afford it.

The argument the judge had to assess was whether this man is breaking the law or not; not whether he can afford the bail; if he is not law abiding the only case to give bail is on special grounds that can be assessed by the court and the bail amount is to be worked out according to the amount to be carried by the sentence; just common sense....

Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)

Aug 22nd 2012, 13:59

What this court report says may all well be true, even if I do not perceive the prosecution capriciously seeking detention-without-bail. But, once the accused are released, does Malta really have the necessary resources to keep tabs on them? History proves that many go on to commit even more serious violence while on bail.

And when (as often happens) accused fail to attend to sign a bail book, how many police hours does it take to seek them out, especially when it concerns some violent drug-dependent of no fixed abode? Can the police reasonably be expected to “keep track”? If in the affirmative, it is tantamount to saying that the police force has idle resources.

Our police force has less than two thousand members including administration and office staff, so how can these maintain surveillance on an outnumbering element of criminals pending trial (and an increasing number of career ones at that)? Double the resources and it still would not be enough. Being presumed innocent is arguable when the evidence is compelling and when safety is an issue.

Notwithstanding its minute size, the police force, having its ear to the ground, is best-placed to deduce who is more likely to be a threat if let out on bail. The judiciary should restrict itself to deciding if the prosecution's argument is equitable adduced.

John Azzopoardi

Aug 22nd 2012, 12:25

Maltese politicians on both sides can longer afford to stay on the sidelines on the migration issue. Malta cannot and should not accept more migrants. We are too small and problems are going to arise on all this. If the EU is not willing to participate inburden sharing,then Malta should immediately start deporting illegal migrants starting with those who have been here the longest. If our maltese politicans are not willing to do this and implement a policy, they should not be running Malta.

D Muscat

Aug 22nd 2012, 11:33

If the court fears that the accused will abscond, why not use ankle bracelets fitted with a GPS tracker? That way the accused persons whereabouts are monitored 24/7.

George Busuttil

Aug 22nd 2012, 11:25

At last a breath of fresh air from our courts. The nest step should be to see how many people are being kept in prison just because they cannot cough up the money asked as guarantee for their freedom and apply this judgement to their cases too. We must also remember that most of those who are poor enough not to be able to post bail monet cannot also afford a good lawyer to fight for their rights.

George Busuttil
Chairperson Fondazzjoni Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl

Chairpersson Fondazzjoni Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl

John Portelli

Aug 22nd 2012, 11:22

This is utterly insane.Lets say for example a serial killer has murdered 5 people and he or she gets caught and the killer is a working class person ,so does he get an affordable bail as well? You shouldn't break the law in the first place.What a sick degenarating world we are living in.This only gives crimminals the upper hand.

Jay Oatmon

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:41

to Joseph Camilleri

What you say is true - except we have career criminals and violent career criminals also.
I believe the accused persons previous police record should be considered before bail is granted.
The public's safety must be the number one concern, not inconvenience to career criminals.

Jay Oatmon

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:37

This sounds reasonable but it ignores the real danger from career criminals in our midst especially the violent ones.
The magistrate should look at each accused persons police record as part of the bail procedures - the courts must protect the public first not the criminal!

C Muscat

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:37

Irrid inzid kumment iehor; mi jidhol fil-pajjiz kif suppost u min jaqbad u jigi hu l-istess; ghax fil-kaz ma ghandniex bzonn nahlu risorzi bien inharsu l-ibhra ta madwarna u inhallu lil min irid jigi jaqbad u jigi.
Nemmen li cittadin komuni ghandu jkollu kull liberta sakemm ma jiksirx il-ligi; la darba xi hadd jikser il-ligi l-awtoritajiet b modf civili ghandhom iharsu l gid komuni.

V. Cauchi

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:35

The amendments introduced by Act III of 2002 made it possible for any person, whatever the crime committed by him, to be granted bail by the court. This flouts the original concept of the detention of persons for violent crimes, such as murder, theft, grievous bodily harm, etc. Which means that detention is now there for other purposes, like forestalling escape, and not to restrain violent persons as originally conceived. No wonder persons granted bail for a violent crime often return to court being arraigned on the same or a similar violent crime.

To make matters worse, sentencing is often watered down with suspensive conditions, which are many a time incomprehensibe other than in the case of foreigners where too often they are the order of the day to avoid further cluttering our prisons with more of these foreigners who already constitute more than 50% of the prison population.

In short, the detention and punishment provisions of the Criminal Code have been rendered toothless considering that amendments to it and the introduction of new laws have often been made in hotchpotch pieces over separate periods of time without taking into view a holistic approach to the concepts involved.
Perhaps, as some outspoken lawyer might say, it is time for a serious review to be made not only by parliament members from government and opposition, but also by lawyers and members of the judiciary, besides other NGOs who can surely contribute to the matter.

Antoine Vella

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:32

We have thankfully come a long way from the "Golden Years" of Dom Mintoff.

E. Azzopardi

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:25

First and foremost one should not commit any crimes and therefore would not be in that position in the first place.

One has to pay for his/her mistake and if he/she cannot afford the bail then though luck. Should have thought about it before. However, bail should always be the exception.

In my opinion, discipline is disintegrating in this country. It is a fact.

twanny borg

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:20

kollox idur mad-dewmien tal-qrati. mhux sewwa anki ghax int hati tibqgha l-habs sakemm tinqaghta s-sentenza. ir-ragun titlob li l-kazijiet jigu decizi malajr u m'ghandux jehel il-persuna. rigward li l-qorti tara jekk hemmx provi bizzejjed biex persuna jibdew proceduri kontra taghha ma jfissirx li l-kaz huwa deciz. hafna hargu liberati wara. l-istess qed isir hazin li nies qed jithallew house arrest ghal snin sakemm tinqata s-sentenza. jekk tohrog hati? sintendi ghall-istat ma gara xejn. wiehed minn tlett zaghzagh li hargu liberati dan l-ahhar fuq stupru ghamel 14-il xahar house arrest. mhux sewwa inhaltu xi traffikant tad-droga li kien hemm kazijiet li minkejja li l-bail kien ta' eluf hareg il-flus dak il-hin mill-but u hallashom. waqt li xi persuna bi ftit flus jithalla maqfula. il-principju li wiehed huwa innocenti qabel jinstab hati ghandu jirbah. il-qrati fuq certi kazijiet ghandhom jinghataw prijorita' u jigu decizi malajr anki b'rispett lejn il-vittmi.

Mr Adrian Zahra

Aug 22nd 2012, 10:04

You are arraigned you plea as guilty and get a sentence. You plea as non guilty and wait for the proceedings. In the meantime you pledge money as a guarantee that you will not evade proceedings. I suggest a much simpler thing you pledge nothing. ON the day of your arraignment the court sets a figure X euros depending on the type of arraignment if you are found guilty in the proceedings you have to pay + obviously the sentence. That way we only get out those who really and truly believe to have a chance of defending themselves and who very likely are innocent. Cause lets put it this way a person who pleads as non guilty and then is found guilty is tantamount to delaying of justice.

B Attard

Aug 22nd 2012, 09:58

Mela aktar ikun hawn abbuzzi minn min m'ghandux ghaxja ta' lejla ghax qatt ma kellu x'jitlef u aktar ma jkollux.

C Muscat

Aug 22nd 2012, 09:57

I would like to add to be clear; I do not agree that personal liberty for any criminal is the rule; this should be the exception.

C Muscat

Aug 22nd 2012, 09:55

Personal liberty is the rule....
One is leaving out the fact that to arrest a person more than the stipulated time by law; the court needs to be confirming that there is enough evidence and for malta any person is innocent unless proven guilty but still the first order to keep a person under arrest is approved by the court because there is enough evidence and this gives chance to the authorities to continue with the case.
I say and proved with instances such as what happened in San Gwann that since there is enough evidence confirmed by the court of justice to keep the person under arrest; that parole/bail whatever you want to call any criminal to be out and free without any particular reason is a risk to society.

Anthony Arpa

Aug 22nd 2012, 09:35

Din Isbah .Tajba din mela hej .... jekk perezempju sinjur joqtol jew ikollu kaz ikollu jhallas pleg to xi 30.000 euro u jekk min joqtol jew ikollu xi kaz ikun jiehu il pleg free. Mela din mhux ukoll tkun diskrimazjoni ?
Jew il pleg ghandu jigi free ghall kullhadd jew jibqa kif inhu ...