|
Karl Schembri
The European Court of Human Rights has decided to hear the case filed by Meinrad Calleja against the Maltese government about alleged breaches to his fundamental human right to a fair trial within reasonable time.
The Court ruled Calleja’s application admissible and said it required an examination of the merits of his complaint after hearing that he was held for almost five years in preventive custody awaiting trial.
Dismissing all the government’s objections put forward by former Attorney General Anthony Borg Barthet, the European Court unanimously said that “the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention (of Human Rights), the determination of which requires an examination of the merits.”
It concluded that the complaint “is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35-3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.”
Represented in Strasbourg by lawyers Ian Refalo and Therese Cachia, Calleja complained about his detention on remand in respect of the charge of complicity in the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana between 15 May 1996 and 4 April 2001, when he was convicted of drugs trafficking and started to serve his sentence for that offence. Calleja alleged that the length of the proceedings brought against him on the attempted murder case had been excessive. Only last February he was found not guilty of having been an accomplice in the attempted murder of the former Prime Minister’s personal assistant.
Calleja was arrested and charged with drug trafficking in November 1995. On 15 May of the following year, while he was in pre-trial detention, a fresh charge of complicity in the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana was brought against him and the applicant was placed in detention on remand in connection with this new criminal charge too.
In the course of criminal proceedings against him, Calleja applied for provisional release on bail on several occasions but his requests were repeatedly rejected by the courts.
The Criminal Court was not persuaded that there was no danger that, once released, the applicant would not try to interfere with evidence or in any way try to obstruct the course of justice. Referring to the gravity of the charges, the Criminal Court had said these showed the manifest social danger posed by the accused, apart from a danger that he might abscond, making use of his contacts abroad.
On 30 March, 1999, Calleja filed an application before the First Hall of the Civil Court, alleging that his lengthy detention and the continued refusal of bail had infringed his fundamental human right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Calleja had argued that while his deprivation of liberty was based on the risk of his tampering with evidence, such fears were unfounded and could be avoided by adopting the necessary precautionary measures, including house arrest. Moreover, the evidence of the prosecution had become known to Calleja by right in order to enable him to prepare his defence. That fact could therefore not be used against him to justify a violation of his other fundamental rights.
On 14 December, 2000, the First Hall of the Civil Court declared that the overall duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had infringed Calleja’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and that he was entitled provisionally to be released under conditions guaranteeing his appearance at the trial. Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia had declared Calleja’s arrest at Corradino prison – four and a half years pending trial – as unconstitutional, leaving it up to the Criminal Court to determine the bail conditions.
The Civil Court had noted that the passing of time could only aggravate the prejudicial effects that the pre-trial detention had had on Calleja’s situation. Moreover, Calleja had a right to institute all the proceedings and to lodge all the complaints he deemed necessary for the defence of his interests, even if this might prolong the criminal proceedings.
As to the grounds justifying the applicant’s continuing detention, the Civil Court observed that the risk of his tampering with evidence appeared to subsist regardless of whether or not he remained under arrest. Moreover, all the evidence against the applicant had already been gathered and heard, and the danger of interference with the course of justice was likely to be reduced as the investigations progressed. It also appeared that the prosecution was inferring the applicant’s dangerousness more from the gravity of the case than from any other evidence.
The Civil Court’s judgement was however overturned by the Constitutional Court following an appeal by the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner to keep Calleja under arrest.
The Constitutional Court concluded that even if it was preoccupied about the length of time that the applicant’s trial was taking, the national authorities had displayed special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings and that the obstacles which had unduly delayed the latter were mainly attributable to the lawyers representing the applicant.
The European Court noted that until last January, proceedings against Calleja on the attempted murder case were still pending at first instance, meaning that by that date more than seven years and seven months had already passed.
“The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established by its case-law on the question of ‘reasonable time,’ and having regard to all the material in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required,” it said. “For these reasons, the Court unanimously declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.”
|
