A claim by a British man that his human rights had been violated because he had not been granted bail has been dismissed by a court.

Jovica Kolakovic, of Serbian origin, was arrested by the police last September on suspicion of involvement in a drug trafficking offence.

He was arraigned in court last September 10, together with two others, a Maltese and a Lithuanian. They were granted bail. A Scotsman also suspected of involvement in the same crime was extradited to Malta but was granted bail.

In his constitutional application Mr Kolakovic claimed that the continued refusal of the criminal courts to grant him bail was in violation of his fundamental human right to freedom from arbitrary detention.

He also claimed that he had been discriminated against as the other co-accused had been granted bail.

In its judgment, the court declared that the European Convention of Human Rights provided that an individual charged with a crime was to be promptly brought before a court which had to decide whether his arrest was lawful and whether further detention was required pending trial.

It resulted that Mr Kolakovic was an ethnic Serbian with British nationality. He had resided in the United Kingdom for 28 years, was married to a British woman and had four children in the United Kingdom. His immediate family still resided in Serbia.

Presiding over the first hall of the Civil Court, Justice Joseph R Micallef said that among the factors the courts had to take into consideration when granting bail were the seriousness of the offence, and the risk of an accused applying pressure on witnesses or obstructing the course of justice. The courts had also to take into consideration the possibility of an accused person absconding from the country.

Last March, the Criminal Court had refused to grant Mr Kolakovic bail on the grounds that he had no fixed ties to Malta. That court had also motivated its decision on the grounds that were Mr Kolakovic to move to a non European Union country, the European Arrest Warrant would not be a solution to enable his return. Mr Kolakovic had not given guarantees that he would appear in court if he were granted bail.

Mr Justice Micallef pointed out that Mr Kolakovic was charged with participating in organised crime. In such cases involving numerous accused persons, there was often a high risk that the accused might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or otherwise obstruct proceedings.

In any event, Mr Kolakovic had been in detention for 11 months which was not an extremely long period and which fell within the legal time limits for release on bail.

When referring to Mr Kolakovic's claim of discrimination the court found that his situation and that of the other co-accused was different. Therefore no discrimination resulted.