The Constitutional Court has rejected a claim by a man who is awaiting trial on drug trafficking charges, who said that people facing similar charges were treated differently.

Claudio Porsenna filed his application against the Attorney General.

The court heard that on May 3, 2003 a certain man who was suspected of involvement in drug trafficking, had given a statement to the Police in which he had mentioned Mr Porsenna. He was arraigned in court on the following day to answer to these charges. The Attorney General had decided that his case be heard by the Magistrates' Court.

He was found guilty by that court and jailed for a year. On appeal his sentence was reduced to six months.

On May 4 2003 Mr Porsenna was also arraigned in court on charges connected with drug trafficking, possession and sale. The Attorney General decided he should face a trial by jury.

In his constitutional application Mr Porsenna said the law did not stipulate before which court an accused person had to be tried, and the discretionary powers of the Attorney General to decide before which court he should appear violated his human rights.

In today's judgement, the Constitutional Court said the law did not regulate the manner in which a person was allocated to a particular court. A person facing charges before the Criminal Court was entitled to the same human rights guaranteed to any person charged before a Magistrates court. The fact that the Attorney General was entitled to decide which court an accused person was to appear before did not mean that the Attorney General was acting as a judge.

Mr Porsenna’s allegation of discrimination, based upon the fact that he and the other man, whose name is protected by court order, had been treated differently, did not result. The Attorney General had based his decision to submit Mr Porsenna to a trial by jury was based on the fact that it appeared to be the case that Mr Porsenna was the brains behind the drug dealing. On the other hand it appeared to be the case that the other person was a drug mule. The Attorney General’s decision to submit the latter man’s case to the Magistrates Court was therefore not discriminatory.