Parliament was in the unusual situation today where government MPs said they would vote against Opposition amendments to the Criminal Code because they would end up giving too much power to the prime minister and cause an overlap between the government and the judiciary.

The private member's bill, moved by shadow minister Jason Azzopardi, provides that in exceptional cases where it is shown that there is wrong administration of justice, the Criminal Code of Appeal may be asked to revisit any conviction by any criminal court.

In his introduction Dr Azzopardi said the bill was inspired by the miscarriage of justice suffered by Emanuel Camilleri, who was jailed after a wrong conviction that he had sexually abused his daughter.

He said that his amendments were simply extending a right, already available to those who suffered a miscarriage of justice in a trial by jury, to those suffering such a miscarriage of justice after a decision by other courts.

There was no bigger civil right than the right to freedom, he said.

While reference was often made to the recent Camilleri case, he said, two priests had told him that there were two innocent persons in jail.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said that while the intention behind the opposition's bill was a good one, the government would vote against it.

The law already provided remedies when miscarriage of justice became known. This was evidenced in the Camilleri case where the courts acted very quickly when what had happened became known, and Mr Camilleri was immediately let out of prison. 

However the bill as proposed by Dr Azzopardi would mean that anyone - potentially hundreds, could upon conviction by any criminal court, be able to write to the prime minister seeking a retrial.

Dr Bonnici said the least politicians were involved in such cases, the better. He said that he would be open to discussing the possibility of giving this power to an independent commission, but despite his absolute confidence in Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, this was not a power that any Prime Minister should have.

Furthermore Dr Azzopardi's proposal would see an overlapping between the government and the administration of justice, something which nobody wanted.

Dr Bonnici said Dr Azzopardi's claim that other innocent persons were serving time in jail was a very serious one and he should immediately insist with the priests who gave him such information to give such information to the courts or competent authorities. 

The minister's comments were echoed by Labour MPs Michael Falzon, Deborah Schembri and Edward Zammit Lewis who wondered what would have happened had it actually been the government which moved such a bill, effectively extending the prime minister's powers.

Furthermore, the timing of this bill was wrong because the constitutional case involving Mr Camilleri was still being heard. 

Other speakers included Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech, who said this bill was needed to tackle exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice, and, he pointed out, the government had spent the last three years extending its powers in several areas such as Mepa and the new authority to administer government property.

Winding up, Dr Azzopardi said there could be no first and second tier miscarriage of justice and a right available to those who were wrongly convicted in a trial by jury should also be enjoyed by those convicted in other courts.

If, by their arguments, the government MPs were against the right currently enjoyed by those convicted in trials, why not remove it?

Similarly, if the government MPs were so much against certain powers being given to the prime minister, why not remove article 93 of the Constitution which empowers the president, on advice by the prime minister, to pardon people.

The bottom line, he said, was not political but that of ensuring that people were not wrongfully jailed. There were many cases where facts emerged well after a conviction was pronounced. Ultimately, in terms of what he was proposing, it would be a court, not the prime minister, who would decide whether or not a person had suffered a miscarriage of justice. 

In this case, the government MPs were being negative and voting against the most sacred civil right, that of freedom, Dr Azzopardi said. 

The private members' bill was later defeated after a division.