No temporary prison release for Leisure Clothing directors, court rules

A court of law has thrown out an appeal by the directors of the defunct textile factory Leisure Clothing – Bin Han and Jia Liu – for an interim release from imprisonment, pending the conclusion of further court cases.

Madam Justice Audrey Demicoli said there were no extreme circumstances that could validate such a request for release, despite the two defendants’ allegation of a breach of fair hearing.

Han and Jia were both jailed for six years in January 2023, after being convicted on appeal of trafficking and exploiting Vietnamese and Chinese employees at the Bulebel-based factory. They were found guilty of forcing employees to work long days with few to no breaks, in illegal working conditions.

They had subsequently filed constitutional proceedings in March, claiming a breach of fair trial rights, arguing that because they had been jailed after their acquittal was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal, that court had not heard evidence or witnesses, nor had it sent the acts back to the Court of Magistrates for the evidence to be heard and evaluated there. 

In their claim made by lawyers Jason Azzopardi, Therese Comodini Cachia, Jose Herrera and Pio Valletta, the two Leisure Clothing directors had said that the same facts which had led to the criminal conviction, had been the subject of other proceedings before (now retired) Magistrate Carol Peralta. 

A copy of the summons and charges relating to that case was attached to the application, together with a letter from the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations in which the department declares that those proceedings had been decided.

The application goes on to state that “some of the accusations are identical to those in the proceedings on the merits of this case and it is certain that all the accusations arise from the same facts.”

Quoting a number of judgements issued by courts in Malta as well as by the European Court of Human Rights, which prohibit the trial of a second offence in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same, the lawyers argued that their clients “should never have been brought to Court again let alone sentenced to three years’ imprisonment each including the confiscation of all their assets.”