A man charged with trafficking five kilograms of cannabis four years ago will be judged by the Magistrates' Court instead of a judge after a court upheld an application in which he challenged the Attorney General's discretion on how his case should proceed.

The case goes back to February 2010 when Alan Muscat, 27, from Qormi, and another three people were charged with conspiring to traffic five kilogrammes of cannabis, trafficking, and possession in circumstances which denoted that the drug was not for their personal use after a deal in Birkirkara was foiled by police.

Defence lawyer Jason Grima lodged an appeal to challenge the Attorney General’s discretion, arguing amongst others that his client's involvement in the trafficking had been minimal.

He also challenged the unfettered discretion of the Attorney General to decide in which court an accused could be brought to trial and consequently which punishment would be applicable – a decision which the European Court of Human Rights has declared that it violated the fundamental human rights of an accused.

If an accused were to face a judge before the criminal court, he could face a maximum possible sentence of life imprisonment, while a magistrate may declare that the case be decided summarily where the maximum sentence that can be awarded is ten years rather than a life sentence.

Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi, presiding the appeals’ court, ruled that the accused’s participation was minimal and that he should consequently face a magistrate’s court, rather than a judge. It heard that the accused's participation was minimal in that he had been promised €100 to transport the drugs from one place to another.