A man currently serving an 18-year jail term over a road rage incident in 2005 is protesting a fresh breach of his right to a fair hearing after his constitutional case was adjourned for judgment 13 times over a one-and-a-half year span.
Stephen Pirotta, 48, has been serving time behind bars ever since his conviction in 2010 following a trial by jury for stabbing a motorist in the chest as the latter sat in his car at Qormi.
Almost two years ago, in February 2016, the man had filed a constitutional application claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached during the interrogation stage preceding the attempted murder proceedings.
Mr Pirotta had released his statement to the police in September 2005, when the right to legal assistance during the investigation and interrogation stage was non-existent within the Maltese legal scenario.
The man subsequently faced trial, was convicted and even had his jail term confirmed on appeal.
Yet in more recent times, the principle of legal assistance in the pre-trial phase was acknowledged not only by a long line of EU judgments, but also by local jurisprudence, such as the judgment delivered in Brian Vella vs AG in December 2018.
In that case, a statement released by the accused at a time when a one-hour consultation with his lawyer was permissible at law, was declared inadmissible as evidence against the accused.
It was precisely in the light of this scenario that Mr Pirotta had filed a constitutional case seeking adequate redress.
However, that case, currently pending before the First Hall, Civil Court, had been adjourned for judgment 13 times over the past one-year-and-a-half, prompting the applicant to file a judicial protest, holding the State responsible for damages, while reserving the right to take ulterior action.
While acknowledging that adjournments for health reasons were always justified, and while closing an eye to some “one or two” adjournments for unspecified reasons, this did not appear to be the case, the protesting party said.
In the majority of instances, the adjournments were put down to the fact that ‘the court needed some more time to deliver judgment,’ Mr Pirotta’s lawyers observed, arguing that this delay was resulting in a further breach of their client’s rights.
Court practice and procedure and good order rules distinguished between ordinary and constitutional cases, stressing that the latter deserved to be treated with ‘certain urgency’, the lawyers continued.
Thirteen adjournments over one-year-and-a-half were “not acceptable and constituted a blatant breach of the Constitution and the European Convention,” the protest concluded, declaring that the State was to be held responsible for damages, while reserving the right to ulterior action.
Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Amadeus Cachia signed the judicial protest.