Just over a week after being handed a suspended sentence after admitting to their involvement in a prostitution racket, six women were back in court requesting their passports back.
Colombian nationals Johana Bermudez Patino, Yeiny Carolina Ayala Moncada, Luisa Fernanda Villalba Monsalve, Maria Valentina Sanchez Quiguanas, Laura Cristina Loaiza Acevado and Daniela Cardona Carrillo had been released from custody on March 14 following their arraignment, each having been handed a 12-month jail term suspended for four years.
Read: Sliema brothel raid lands eight in court
The young women had pleaded guilty to living off the earnings of prostitution, running a brothel and using the Sliema premises for prostitution purposes.
The day after judgment was delivered against them, their lawyer filed an application before the Magistrates’ Court requesting release of their passports.
A week later, in view of the fact that the request had not yet been acceded to, lawyers assisting the women attempted a different route, filing special proceedings, known as habeas corpus - an action intended to remedy illegal arrest.
Tantamount to illegal arrest - lawyers
In proceedings on Friday afternoon, defence lawyers Gianluca Caruana Curran and Therese Comodini Cachia argued that withholding the passports effectively amounted to their illegal arrest since their movement was restricted.
Without such personal documents their clients could not obtain basic services and could not effect money transfers, leaving them short of funds.
However, lawyer Maria Francesca Fenech from the Office of the Attorney General, prosecuting Inspector Joseph Busuttil and Dr Marion Camilleri, assisting the Director General of the Law Courts, countered that proceedings of habeas corpus contemplated the detention of a physical person, which was not the case at issue.
Therefore, the procedure adopted by the defence was not the correct one, the prosecution argued, further noting that the term for filing an appeal against the judgments delivered against the six women, had not yet expired.
After lengthy submissions which went on well into the evening, the court, presided over by magistrate Marse-Ann Farrugia, delivered a decision at 11.30pm declaring that withholding a person’s passport did not amount to detention.
The court quoted the ECHR in Baumann vs France which had established that the keeping of a passport by the police constituted a breach of freedom of movement in the particular circumstances of that case.
“In the opinion of the court, the confiscation of a passport can constitute a limitation on the movement of the applicants, but it does not amount to detention,” ruled the magistrate, adding that consequently the scenario of the present case did not fall within the parameters of the article of the law upon which the request had been based.
In view of this, the court refrained from entering into the issue as to whether the failure to release the said passports had been legally justified or not.
Meanwhile, criminal proceedings against the suspect masterminds behind the brothel activity, continue.
Don Spagnol, 34, and Luke Farrugia, 31, both Gżira residents, had pleaded not guilty to their alleged involvement in the running of a brothel, living off the earnings of prostitution and using the Sliema premises for such purposes.
They were remanded in custody upon their arraignment, the court turning down the request for bail in view of the fact that civilian witnesses, among them the six Colombian ladies, were still to testify.