The Constitutional Court yesterday overturned a judgment which said that Charles Muscat (known as “Il-Pips”), who is charged with drug trafficking, had suffered a violation of his fundamental human rights when he had released a statement to the police while not being assisted by a lawyer.

Mr Muscat had been informed of his right not to answer any questions but had chosen to answer the questions and to sign a statement

Mr Muscat, who is charged with trafficking in heroin and cocaine, had made a statement to the police in 2002 when he had already been in prison since 1994 on other charges.

In 2010 he claimed before the First Hall of the Civil Court that he had not been assisted by a lawyer at the time because in 2002 there was no right at law for an accused person to be assisted by a lawyer. He claimed that this was a violation of his fundamental human right to a fair hearing and requested the court to grant him a remedy.

In October 2011, the first court had upheld Mr Muscat’s claim and the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, then appealed to the Constitutional Court composed of Acting Chief Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri and Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon. On appeal the Constitutional Court declared that the fundamental human right protected by the Constitution and the European Convention of Human rights was that to a fair hearing. This right consisted in having a fair hearing within a reasonable time with suitable guarantees.

The role of the Constitutional Court was not that of establishing Mr Muscat’s guilt or innocence nor was it that of ascertaining whether he had been assisted by a lawyer while being interrogated by the police. The Constitutional Court was bound to examine whether any failures in the proceedings against Mr Muscat could lead to a violation of his human rights or could lead to him being found guilty when he was innocent.

In this particular case Mr Muscat was already in prison and was a mature man when he had been interrogated by the police in 2002 and released a statement. He had undergone previous interrogations and was not a vulnerable minor who could be intimidated by a police interrogation.

Furthermore, Mr Muscat had been informed of his right not to answer any questions but had chosen to answer the questions and to sign a statement.

No allegations of violence on the part of the authorities had been made by Mr Muscat and it was only in 2010 that he had sought to retract the statement he had given in 2002. This was an indication that he had not felt unfairly disadvantaged by the statement he had given voluntarily.

The Constitutional Court added that the criminal proceedings against Mr Muscat, which were still under way, would take into consideration not only his statement but also the evidence produced against him. During these proceedings Mr Muscat would be assisted at all times by a lawyer. The presiding judge would warn the jurors of the danger of relying solely upon Mr Muscat’s statement when deciding upon guilt or innocence and of the danger of discarding other innocence.

The presiding judge would also advise the jurors to discard the statement if evidence was produced to show that the statement was issued as a result of violence, threats or fraud.

In conclusion, the court upheld the appeal and revoked the first court’s judgment, finding that there was no violation of Mr Muscat’s fundamental human rights.

The court also ordered that a copy of the judgment be inserted into the records of the criminal proceedings against Mr Muscat so that the presiding judge would be aware of his or her duties of ensuring due process at law.