The “arbitrary” way in which the Attorney General decided whether a drug case was heard before a jury or a magistrate had to be addressed, a lawyer said yesterday.

“At the stroke of a pen, the Attorney General can decide whether the case is heard summarily (by a magistrate) of goes to trial.

“No reason is given… and even if the decision makes no sense, it remains unexplained. This needs to be addressed,” said José Herrera, who is also Labour justice spokesman.

When a case is heard by a magistrate, the maximum jail term is 10 years but an accused faces life imprisonment if his case goes to trial.

Dr Herrera raised the argument during the arraignment of Silvano Fenech, 25, who pleaded not guilty to the possession of 80 grammes of cannabis resin with the intent to sell.

Mr Fenech was also charged with possession of cocaine after the police searched his Marsa home on Sunday.

Dr Herrera said there had been similar cases when the accused was asked to turn up in court after receiving a citation at home. However, his client was charged under arrest.

Apart from that, the Attorney General had decided, at this stage, that the case would go to trial. The lawyer said he knew of much more serious cases when the Attorney General felt the case could be decided by a magistrate.

Dr Herrera said that the situation could “create suspicions” with clients wondering why their case went to trial while others, sometimes more serious ones, did not. Magistrate Carol Peralta remanded the man in custody.