Drug trafficking case first to challenge Attorney General's discretion on court hearing

A landmark decision was handed down by the Criminal Court this morning: a successful challenge to the right of the Attorney General to decide by which court a case will be heard. 

This was the very first successful action of its nature, allowed by the introduction of a new procedure which entered into force on 1 August 2014.

Judge Michael Mallia held that Emmanuel Magri, accused of importing and trafficking heroin, was not to stand trial by jury as originally intended by the Attorney General, but instead will be heard by the court of Magistrates, having deemed it to be a borderline case that could have been heard with equal legitimacy by either court.

The decision is the first to use the procedure that allows the accused to challenge the hitherto sacrosanct discretion of the Attorney General in choosing whether a defendant is to be put under a bill of indictment and sent before the Criminal Court, with the maximum possible sentence being life imprisonment, or decided summarily by a magistrate, where the maximum custodial sentence that can be awarded is ten years.