A man facing drug importation charges asked the court to postpone his trial by jury until a judge decides whether his rights were breached in a January 2014 judgment connected to the case.

Alfred Camilleri was meant to stand trial for importing 9,000 ecstasy pills from the UK on March 9. But before his trial starts he is contesting a judgment that allowed the statement he released to police soon after his arrest in 2006 to be used against him during the trial.

Mr Camilleri – through his lawyers Veronique Dalli and Joseph Gatt – noted that in May 2011 he had filed a constitutional reference arguing that his rights to a fair trial had been violated when he was not accompanied by a lawyer when giving the police statement.

On January 16, 2012, the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction found that his rights had in fact been breached.

This decision, he said, was in accord with a string of court decisions issued over the years.

The Attorney General appealed the matter in the Constitutional Court. On November 12, 2012, the court – presided over by Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri – confirmed the original judgment.

The Attorney General then made a request for the case to be reheard by the Constitutional Court. It was accepted. Mr Camilleri argued that such a practice had not been allowed for some 50 years.

He is contesting his police statement from 2006 being used against him

On January 31, 2014, the Constitutional Court – presided over by the same three judges – overturned its own decision and ruled that Mr Camilleri’s rights had not been breached. Therefore his statement could be used as evidence against him.

Yesterday, Mr Camilleri filed an application calling on the court to declare the January 2014 decision and that allowing the re-hearing null.

He argued that these decisions created legal uncertainty as they contradicted case law. Besides, he said, his rights had been breached since the same three judges overturned their own decision following the Attorney General’s request.