Attorney General Peter Grech believes criticism of the discretionary power his office enjoys “fails to appreciate” the role and the legal basis that makes it possible.
The Attorney General’s discretion to determine the fate of a criminal case with implications on the maximum prison term has often been criticised by lawyers.
The debate was rekindled recently after a spat between Magistrate Francesco Depasquale and the Attorney General over the “archaic systems” of review by the State prosecutor.
The discretion has a significant bearing on whether the accused faces a maximum of 10 years behind bars, if the case is decided by a magistrate, or the ultimate life sentence, if heard by a judge.
But Dr Grech has defended his office’s actions, which he insists are in line with legal requirements.
Criticising the Attorney General’s office... really misses the point and is unacceptable
“In the circumstances, criticising the Attorney General’s office for fulfilling the role given to it by law really misses the point and is unacceptable,” he said.
Last year, Commonwealth legal consultant Nick Cowdery, a former director of public prosecution in New South Wales, Australia, suggested that magistrates should have automatic jurisdiction on all charges that carried maximum penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Such a move will help speed up criminal justice cases dogged by delays at the compilation of evidence stage, such as was criticised by Dr Depasquale.
But Dr Grech explained it was the Attorney General’s role to ensure all relevant evidence was produced and compiled according to law so that it would not be discarded at a later stage. He insisted the prosecution’s interest in things being properly done at the compilation of evidence stage was not limited to cases that eventually went to trial by jury.
Dr Grech asked whether extending the jurisdiction of magistrates implied that such cases should not be of interest to his office.
“Is society really so indifferent about the likes of armed robbers, fraudsters, rapists and drug dealers getting off the hook due to some unsupervised process of compilation of evidence leading to insufficient evidence being brought forward?”
He insisted that there could be different procedural systems to the compilation of evidence and acknowledged that it was sometimes abused by those involved.
Saying he was not against reforming the system or even replacing it, he insisted everyone should do his best to do a good job of the current system.
But whatever system would eventually be adopted, he added, the country could not afford to have “a free-for-all where all courts make their own rules for particular cases”.