NEWS | Wednesday, 28 January 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

On Saturday, the Justice Ministry’s response to the UN delegation’s report made no reference to its criticism of Malta’s arrest procedure. Is this an admission that Malta’s arrest and interrogation procedures are illegal?

Not at all. The Ministry’s reply on Friday was aimed at swiftly addressing the most salient points in the UN delegation’s press release, in light of the fact that a fuller report will be published in Geneva in May. You can rest assured that Malta’s detention policy is in line with Maltese and EU law. Even from the very same extracts quoted, it results clearly that the UN delegation does not at all allege that Malta’s arrest and interrogation procedures are illegal.
How do you respond to criticism that your “accumulation of powers may lead to a perception of lack of transparency of and control within the system of administration of justice”?

It is worth noting that though certain branches in the administration of justice fall under this Ministry from the administrative point of view, most of these – such as the Courts of Justice and, to a large extent, the Office of the Attorney General - are independent and constitutionally shielded from Government interference. The Group’s comments in this regard may be a reflection of their lack of familiarity with Malta’s legal system. This cannot be seen as surprising taking into account the fact that it is very difficult to fully grasp the workings of a system which has hundreds of years of historical development behind it within the few (five) days that the delegation spent in Malta.

The UN report highlighted an apparent discrimination whereby foreigners are often denied bail on the grounds that they might abscond. How do you react to this criticism?

Bail is decided upon by the Courts which are an independent arm of Malta’s Administration. It is also worth noting that in the past bail has not been granted by the Courts exclusively to locals but has also been granted to EU citizens and third-country nationals in several cases.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled (36391/02) that Turkey violated human rights by holding a suspect under arrest without access to a legal representative.
Are you concerned that this ruling, applied to Malta, might be interpreted as meaning that all Malta’s arrests and subsequent prosecutions for the past 30 years have been illegal, and that the government could theoretically find itself having to pay compensation to all the injured parties involved?
This ruling is currently being studied. One should note, however, that the circumstances related to that judgement case may not be the equivalent and applicable to Malta’s system.

Does the government have any intention of publishing the legal notices and transposing the 2004 amendments into law? If so, when? If not, why?

Government appreciates that this matter is generating the public debate that it sought to raise and welcomes any submission in this regard.
One should stress the importance of striking the right balance between protecting the rights of suspects and those of law-abiding citizens in this regard. Government is currently in the process of seeking this balance.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.