Constitutional Court dismisses claim of human rights breach by Maksar brothers and Jamie Vella

The Constitutional Court has rejected Adrian Agius, Robert Agius and Jamie Vella’s claim to have suffered a breach of their human rights by the granting of a pardon to Vincent Muscat.

It also rejected their claim that their human rights were breached due to the manner in which the proceedings against them are being conducted.

Adrian Agius is indicted for the murder of lawyer Carmel Chircop, while Robert Agius and Jamie Vella are indicted over alleged involvement murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, as well as that of Chircop.

They had filed constitutional proceedings, claiming to have suffered three breaches of their fair trial rights. The first breach alleged was due to the fact that the Attorney General who had advised the President on the granting of a Presidential Pardon to Vincent Muscat

The plaintiffs had claimed that they had not been charged earlier because the police did not have the evidence to do so, “unless a plea bargain was agreed upon between the Attorney General and Vincent Muscat with regards to his participation in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, as well as the presidential pardon Muscat was granted over his involvement in the murder of Chircop.”

Their lawyers had argued that Vella and the Agius brothers had suffered a breach of their right to a fair trial because of the pardon granted to Muscat, the plea bargain agreement reached with Muscat in which the Attorney General had also participated and, lastly, the choice to deal with the two unconnected murders in the same proceedings, which would lead to the case being prolonged unnecessarily.

In a decision handed down today, the Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr. Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr. Justice Anthony Ellul rejected as “manifestly unfounded,” the appellants’ argument that the First Hall of the Civil Court had been mistaken in its decision because it had failed to understand their complaint about Muscat’s pardon. “What they are taking as a breach of their fundamental rights is the institution and mechanism for the granting of the pardon.”

“It is clear that the first court examined the appellants’ complaint about the articles of the Constitution regulating the granting of pardons breached their right to a fair hearing. In fact, part of this ground of the appeal deals with the first court’s deliberations on this point.”

The judges opined that the First Hall of the Civil Court had been correct in declaring that it was not possible for a section of the Constitution to be inconsistent with another section of the same Constitution.

The court observed that the plaintiffs were also claiming that the charges against them rested solely on a single account, given by Vincent Muscat, a fact which they contended, itself breached their right to a fair hearing.

The judges, however, pointed out that every witness testifying in a compilation of evidence can be cross-examined by the defence and every witness testifying during an inquiry can be brought to the witness stand and be cross-examined in the subsequent compilation proceedings.

The criminal proceedings against the applicants were still ongoing and appeared to be making good progress, noted the judges. “In those proceedings, the applicants have at their disposal all the permissible safeguards which guarantee that a hearing is fair. This Court is of the understanding that at the current stage in the criminal case filed against the applicants, it is much too early for it to be said that a breach of accused’s fundamental rights had or would occur.”

Besides this, ruled the judges, the Constitutional Court did not have the legal competence to interfere in criminal proceedings by directing what evidence or witnesses should be heard. “This is the task of the courts of criminal jurisdiction,” they said, adding that this point had already been examined by the courts of constitutional jurisdiction.