The government is expected to amend the law to give people serving life sentences the right to apply for a review of their punishment.

This would bring the law into line with a recent European Court of Human Rights judgment.

Sources close to the Justice Ministry said the amendments will follow a recent judgment by the Maltese Constitutional Court which accepted an application by Ben Hassine Ali Wahid, currently serving life, for a review of his sentence.

Lawyer Larry Formosa successfully fought to give his client, Ben Hassine Ali Wahid, a chance to get his life sentence reviewed.

Considered by many as a “landmark judgment”, several lawyers – including a former judge on the European Court of Human Rights – expressed satisfaction at the Maltese Constitutional Court judgment.

READ: Life sentences must come with a review mechanism, court rules

Judge Giovanni Bonello said the Maltese court almost had no choice as “any other conclusion would, in my view, have been thrashed by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg”.

“I find it easy to agree with the recent judgment that life sentences without the possibility of review are a very obvious violation of fundamental human rights. This is compellingly argued by the judgment, on the lines established by the renowned Vintner case.

“My reading of the many adverse comments that this judgment provoked is that its critics did not quite understand what the judgment said and what it did not say. The judgment did not say that life imprisonment violates human rights. The judgment did not say that sentences of life imprisonment must be reviewed. Nothing of the sort. It just said that sentences of life imprisonment that preclude the possibility of review, violate human rights. Of course they do. They go against one of the objectives of incarceration – the rehabilitation of the prisoner and the motivation that spurns a prisoner to reform,” Judge Bonello said.

Stefano Filletti, who lectures in law at the University of Malta, said he wondered how it had taken so long to successfully challenge the status quo on this issue under Maltese law, in what he described as a landmark judgment.

“In my opinion, one reason for this was due to the fact that public sentiment in general was not that favourable to the idea of showing clemency to such prisoners considering the heinous and, at times, quite brutal nature of the murders involved and the harm done to society and, in particular, the families and relatives of the victims,” he said.

However, he added, there were local NGOs like Mid-Dlam għad-Dawl and international entities like the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, among others, who had signalled this “anachronism” and urged the authorities to take a more reasonable approach in line with European policy by offering at least a glimmer of hope.

Although lifers rarely die in prison, the current system of release is inadequate in that it is too arbitrary and discretionary

A review mechanism must now be in place with regard to all prisoners even in the case of ‘lifers’, he said.

Another criminal lawyer, Veronique Dalli, noted that a life sentence under Maltese criminal law did not consider a prisoner’s progress towards rehabilitation.

While it was well established that a State must be free to impose life sentences on adult offenders for exceptionally serious crimes such as murder, this was not incompatible with the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, she said. And while the State had a duty to protect the public from violent crime, “it would be rather whimsical to expect a whole-life prisoner to work towards his own rehabilitation in a scenario where no mechanism is in place which allows for a review based on his rehabilitation”.

The Constitutional Court, she argued, had “no option” but to uphold the applicant’s claim that a life sentence with no prospect for sentence review was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.

Larry Formosa, the lawyer who successfully fought this battle on behalf of his client, Ben Hassine, has been studying this flaw in Maltese law since his university days and wrote his thesis on the subject.

Malta, he said, needed to take note of the global developments in this area. In the US, for example, a number of constitutional applications were filed claiming that an irreducible life sentence went against the eighth amendment which prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual punishments”.

In Europe, this argument also made it to the courtroom, including in Strasbourg, which on several occasions concluded that the lack of a possibility to request a review of a life sentence went against the European Convention.

“Although lifers rarely die in prison, the current system of release is inadequate in that it is too arbitrary and discretionary. This goes contrary to the rehabilitative aims which the Restorative Justice Act intends to achieve. Since the prerogative of mercy is by its nature discretionary, the legislator should not have based the release of these prisoners on this system,” Dr Formosa argued in court.

Roberta Lepre, a lawyer representing the victims’ lobby group, also agreed with the conclusions of the Constitutional Court but was concerned about favouring offenders.

“As an organisation that fully promotes and supports human rights, Victim Support Malta is in favour of the direction provided in this judgment. Our concern however, both vis-à-vis this judgment and other recent legal developments, is the fact that there seems to be a further shift towards the recognition, application and enforcement of rights which benefit offenders,” Dr Lepre said when contacted.

“On the other hand, various rights belonging to victims are still not being implemented, leading to a situation where the criminal justice system is blatantly biased in favour of offenders and against victims.”

She explained that the provisions of the Victims of Crime Act, for instance, are still not in force.

“Not only this but key professionals whose duty it is to grant victims the rights enacted under this law, are not even aware of its existence, despite the fact that the State has a legal obligation to provide training to key stakeholders, as per the provisions of the Victims’ Directive.

“What we are proposing therefore is that there should be a holistic action plan, which addresses both victims’ and offenders’ rights in an equal manner,” she said.

Who is Ben Hassine?

The Tunisian had been found guilty, along with co-national Mohsen Bin Brahim Mosbah, of killing four people in 1988. They are considered to be serial killers.

The two men had admitted to killing James Reed at Ta’ Xbiex on a yacht on February 12, 1988, and Alfred Cucciardi, a taxi driver, on the same night. Six days later, they killed taxi driver Alfred Darmanin and Frenchman Michel Levarlet. Both are serving life sentences.

There are currently 14 prisoners serving life sentences at the Corradino Correctional Facility.