Constitutional Court rejects former prison couple's appeal for more compensation over prison leave refusal

Constitutional Court dismisses appeal filed by a prison inmate and his ex-partner, in which it had been asked to increase the amount of compensation awarded to them over a breach of rights which took place when they were refused prison leave to get married

File photo
File photo

The Constitutional Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a prison inmate and his ex-partner, in which it had been asked to increase the amount of compensation awarded to them over a breach of rights which took place when they were refused prison leave to get married.

Yousef Essesi and Meliza Muscat had filed proceedings against the Director of the Corradino Correctional Facility in 2019, claiming to have suffered a breach of their right to private and family life, after the prison authorities rejected Essesi’s request for prison leave, on account of his bad behaviour. In the court application, Essesi had also claimed to have been subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment.

But the court had also heard how, during his time in prison, Essesi had been involved in numerous fights with his fellow inmates and had received additional jail time for assaulting a prison warder. Essesi had at least 107 disciplinary cases pending before the prison director at the time the case was filed.

Former prison director Col. Alexander Dalli had testified in that case, explaining that prison leave is granted at the discretion of the prison director and that he had decided not to grant Essesi leave, because of his “totally undignified behaviour in jail.”

The case became a topic of national discussion after Essesi’s fiancée had appeared on the popular television chat show Xarabank in a bid to raise awareness of the obstacles they were facing.

In May 2022, the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, had awarded Essesi €1,000 and his fiancee €500 in compensation for moral damages, declaring their right to private and family life had been breached.

In their decision to reject the request for higher compensation, the Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, together with judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, made it clear that the evaluation of the evidence in this case had already been carried out by the court of first instance and that there was no need to repeat it as the appeal filed did not challenge it.

The court said it had taken several factors into account in reaching its conclusion, the first of which was that the plaintiffs had filed a note in February, informing it that they were no longer in a relationship together.

It also noted that the prison’s recordings of the phone calls between the plaintiffs whilst Essesi was incarcerated, showed that the couple’s relationship had already been “not at all good” in late 2019, when their original human rights claim was filed.

The judges observed that Essesi’s prison file showed that he had been causing trouble at the Corradino Correctional Facility for years and had been the subject of many disciplinary proceedings there. A separate behaviour report also showed that he was a troublemaker, whose regular reports of misbehaviour continued into the year 2020.

Another report issued in March 2021 by the Care and Reintegration Unit Multidisciplinary Team had described Essesi as “very high risk-dangerous personality,” noted the court.

“The plaintiff’s attitude is so rebellious that he also lost out on a not-inconsiderable amount of remission from the sentences which he is serving. In fact, he also caused trouble in Division 8…supposedly the calmest division in the facility,” said the judges, noting however, that in May 2021 the prison director had testified to a recent improvement in Essesi’s behaviour.

The Constitutional Court said that it was of the opinion that it should not disturb the discretion exercised by the previous court with regards to compensation. 

“Nothing was said in the appeal application that could convince this court otherwise. The court is of the understanding that the compensatory remedy given by the first court was sufficient.”