[attach id=218234 size="large"]Kenneth Gafà[/attach]

A court’s refusal to grant a murder suspect bail did not violate his fundamental human rights because there was a great risk of contamination of evidence, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday.

Kenneth Gafà was awaiting trial charged with the murder Christine Sammut in Żebbiegħ after being arrested by the police in December of 2010. His bail requests were repeatedly denied, he complained.

Mr Gafà then filed a constitutional application before the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming violation of his right to a fair hearing.

That court ruled against Mr Gafà, holding that the State was entitled to prevent crime and this was a legitimate basis for the deprivation of liberty.

It ruled there were sufficient reasons for Mr Gafà to be denied bail for his personality was worrying and the safety of his alleged victim’s relatives, including her minor daughter, had to be taken into consideration.

The accused appealed to the Constitutional Court.

In yesterday’s judgment the court, composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri, held that an individual was entitled to freedom from deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the courts had to be satisfied that there were valid and objective reasons for bail to be refused. The criminal courts had based their refusal to grant bail on the fact that the evidence against Mr Gafà had not yet been heard. This reason could not, of itself, justify the continued detention of Mr Gafà.

Furthermore, this reason was no longer valid once the principal witnesses had been heard.

The court added that the reasons given for the refusal of bail included the fact that Mr Gafà had a criminal record and that he was unemployed and could not therefore give adequate guarantees. Neither these reasons were sufficient to justify his continued detention, said the Constitutional Court.

The court, however, found that the refusal to grant bail was justified on the basis that there was the need to protect the evidence from being interfered with and to protect the daughter of Mr Gafà’s alleged victim and other witnesses.

Mr Gafà was facing charges of wilful murder which carried a penalty of life imprisonment. This meant that the risk of contamination of evidence was great and a real danger.

The Constitutional Court confirmed the first court’s judgment.