Curbs to AG’s power seen as the next step after rights case

Common sense has been vindicated by a recent European Court of Human Rights’ decision that Maltese law should regulate the Attorney General’s discretion over which court hears drug cases, according to Judge Giovanni Bonello.

Lawyers had long been questioning the undue amount of power that the Attorney General retained in the judicial process

It was now important for the Maltese Parliament to put forward the legal amendments to abide by the ECHR’s decision, said Dr Bonello, a former judge on the Strasbourg court.

Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Owen Bonnici said the Attorney General was taking stock of the situation “and will give me a detailed analysis of the implications as soon as possible”.

Under Maltese law the Attorney General has complete discretion to decide in which court to try a drug trafficking case, and therefore the punishment bracket.

If an accused is tried in the Magistrates’ Court he faces a prison term ranging between six months and 10 years but, if tried in the Criminal Court, the term is between four years and life.

The ECHR found that Maltese law does not provide any guidance on the matter and this is in breach of the right not to be punished without laws being in place.

This decision was made final last week in the case of convicted drug trafficker John Camilleri versus Malta.

“I think it’s a good thing that the ECHR finally put some order in a delicate matter like disparity in sentences.

“I’m glad that common sense has finally been vindicated,” Dr Bonello said, adding that this issue had long been raised by Maltese lawyers, including himself 16 years ago.

Agreeing, lawyer Joseph Giglio said lawyers had long been questioning the undue amount of power that the Attorney General wields in the judicial process.

Dr Giglio is the lawyer of convicted drug trafficker Claudio Porsenna, who has a pending case before the ECHR also challenging the AGs discretion. In May Mr Porsenna wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to intervene after his co-accused was given a more lenient punishment for the same crime.

“I think this judgment confirms that the situation has to be addressed… This case is the first step in the right direction,” Dr Giglio said, adding that there were other areas where the law allowed the AG “undue powers”.

“I hope finally Parliament will start implementing a reform and enact laws to control this exaggerated amount of influence and control that the Attorney General has in judicial proceedings,” Dr Giglio said.

The Attorney General is a party to the proceedings as well as being the prosecutor, and it is unacceptable that he has unfettered discretion given the fact that he also dictates to magistrates what evidence should be brought forward during the compilation of evidence, according to Dr Giglio.

Lawyer Joseph Brincat, who represented Mr Camilleri in the Strasbourg court, said the judgment would have an effect on pending cases before the Criminal Court.

“All these were filed under the wrong impression that the Attorney General was constitutionally right to choose the court for the trial, with consequent astronomical increase in the bracket of the applicable punishment,” he said adding that it would now have to be determined whether the decision would apply to past cases.

The ECHR’s decision was welcomed by George Busuttil from Mid Dlam Għad Dawl, an NGO that works with inmates.

“At least this large discrepancy in punishments will end,” he said.