The Civil Court today dismissed a constitutional application filed by Daniel Alexander Holmes against the Attorney General, the Police Commissioner and the Registrar of the Gozo courts, claiming violation of human rights.

Mr Holmes told the court that in December 2007 he, together with Berry Charles Lee, had been arraigned before the Gozo courts on charges of theft of a motor car and a dinghy motor, with voluntary damage and with having caused slight injuries to Joseph Muscat.

According to Mr Holmes, he had been held in preventive custody for almost a year until bail was granted in December 2008. Mr Holmes was eventually acquitted of all charges against him in May 2013.

In his constitutional application Mr Holmes claimed that his right to assistance when under arrest had been violated, that he had not been provided with an adequate defence by his legal aid counsel and that he had not been released on bail within a reasonable time.

But the court ruled against Mr Holmes, who is currently serving 10-and-a-half years in prison after cultivating cannabis. He recently had a €7,000 compensation award revoked after a Constitutional Court found that his rights were not breached by trial delays.

The court found that, even though the case took longer than “was strictly necessary”, the delay could not be deemed a breach of Mr Holmes’s right to a trial within a reasonable time.

He intends to file a case against Malta in the European Court of Human Rights, attacking not only the lengthy proceedings but also what he believes is an excessive punishment.

In his judgement today, Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti found in favour of the Attorney General and ruled that the case ought to have been filed only against the Attorney General and not against the Police Commissioner or the Court Registrar.

When considering Mr Holmes' claim that he had not been provided legal counsel while under arrest, Mr Justice Chetcuti said that local case law had provided that such lack did not of itself lead to a violation of human rights, One had to assess all the circumstances of the particular case to see if this lack of legal assistance led to a violation of the right to a fair hearing.

In this case, the fact that Mr Holmes did not have legal counsel while under arrest did not his prejudice his defence. Mr Holmes had not released a statement to the police, and had always insisted upon his innocence. He had, in fact, been eventually acquitted.

Mr Holmes' claim that he had not been given adequate means to choose his own lawyer was also dismissed. The court pointed out that Mr Holmes had also raised this complaint in the other constitutional proceedings he had previously filed, and that it had been dismissed as unfounded.

The court added that Mr Holmes had not raised this complaint while the criminal proceedings against him were ongoing, and that no evidence had been forthcoming to show that the legal aid lawyer appointed to assist him was inexperienced or incompetent in the criminal law field.

Mr Justice Chetcuti also dismissed Mr Holmes' claim that he had been deprived of release on bail for too long a period.

Mr Holmes, said the court, had been arraigned in court on December 12, 2007 and was granted release on bail on December 4, 2008.

His request for release on bail, made when he was arraigned, had been denied on grounds that there was a danger he would abscond. It was only on October 21, 2008 that Mr Holmes had filed a second request for release on bail, and this was granted on December 4 of the same year.

This six week period between the request for bail and its grant could not be considered to have violated Mr Holmes' human rights.

The found that Mr Holmes' human rights had not been violated.