An Italian man convicted of drug trafficking has written to the Prime Minister asking him to intervene after his Maltese co-accused was given a more lenient punishment for the same crime.
By no stretch of the imagination can one accept the gross discrimination in my regard
“I humbly ask with insistence and persistence to be granted a lesser sentence on the strength of these injustices and blatant discrimination,” inmate Claudio Porsenna wrote in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.
Last September Mr Porsenna, 36, was jailed for eight years and fined €15,000 when he admitted to conspiring to deal in 2.5 kilos of cannabis in May 2003.
In 2009, his co-accused – whose name cannot be published – was jailed for a year for conspiring to deal in two kilos of the same drug. The judgment was reduced to six months on appeal.
In the letter, a copy of which was sent to Times of Malta, Mr Porsenna tells Dr Muscat that the Attorney General had decided that his case be decided in the Criminal Court, which presides over trials by jury.
When it came to his Maltese co-accused, however, the AG decided that the case should be heard before the lower Magistrates’ Court.
This meant he faced a jail term ranging between four years and life while his co-accused faced imprisonment ranging between six months and 10 years – for the same offence.
The Prime Minister cannot intervene to change a judgment handed down by the courts.
However, the Government can push for a legal amendment that does not allow the Attorney General to indiscriminately decide where a case is tried.
Mr Porsenna has a pending case before the European Court of Human Rights challenging this discretion.
He is claiming that the AG’s discretionary power, which cannot be challenged, was in breach of his right to a fair trial.
In the application to the Strasbourg court, Mr Porsenna outlines his case. On May 3, 2003, police arrested the co-accused in possession of the cannabis resin.
The man told police he got the drugs from Mr Porsenna.
When the co-accused was arraigned, the Attorney General decided that his case should be heard by the Magistrates’ Court.
On May 4, 2003, Mr Porsenna was arraigned with a third person and the Attorney General decided they should face a trial by jury.
Mr Porsenna and the third man instituted a constitutional case challenging this decision and the AG’s discretion.
However, the constitutional application was thrown out and that decision was confirmed on appeal.
Meanwhile, the AG decided that the case of the third person should be tried in the lower courts. It is still pending.
Last September, Mr Porsenna admitted to the charges during what was to be his trial. Even then, he raised the injustice of the AG’s decision.
He was jailed for eight years after the court ruled that he was the mastermind.
In the letter to Dr Muscat he wrote: “If one were to accept objectively the arguments… by no stretch of the imagination can one accept the gross discrimination in my regard… it means I got 16 times more…”
Lawyers Steve Tonna Lowell and Joe Giglio are representing Mr Porsenna.