Lawyer requests constitutional reference over Libyan suspect's refusal of interpreter
A court has agreed to refer a case regarding a Libyan man who had refused to be assisted by an interpreter during his police interrogation, to a court of constitutional jurisdiction
A court has agreed to refer a case regarding a Libyan man who had refused to be assisted by an interpreter during his police interrogation, to a court of constitutional jurisdiction, after the issue was raised by his lawyer.
Miloud Elforjani, 40, was arraigned in 2019, accused of damaging the property of his employers, telling police that he had resorted to this after not getting paid for his work. During his arraignment, Elforjani, at the time a legal resident of Malta for four years, pleaded not guilty to charges of having caused €4,620 in damages to his employers’ cars.
The man’s lawyer Daniel Attard had later filed an application requesting a constitutional reference in October 2021. The Attorney General had subsequently filed a reply.
The Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Judicature presided by magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo issued a decree on the matter earlier today.
In the decree, the magistrate noted that the accused had requested the court appoint an interpreter during his arraignment in August 2019, as he didn’t understand Maltese, and that in his application his lawyer argued that it follows that he should have also been assisted by an interpreter when issuing his statement to the police.
After examining the acts of the case, as well as relevant case law on the issue, the magistrate observed that he and the investigating police inspector had signed an undated document, confirming that he spoke and understood Maltese.
“However, the accused declared in the first sitting that he is not very familiar with the Maltese language,” noted the court, also observing that he had subsequently been provided with an interpreter whenever he requested one.
Ruling the complaint to be “materially and intrinsically connected to the merits” of the case, the court said that it felt that this issue had to first be explored by the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction in order for a decision to be taken.
The compilation of evidence against the man was therefore suspended until the issue was decided by that court.