Constitutional court rejects drug trafficking accused’s bid for non-jury trial

The First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction has dismissed a challenge by a man who claimed his right to a fair hearing was breached when he was denied the choice to be tried by a judge alone.

Judge Ian Spiteri Bailey delivered the judgment on Friday, ruling the upcoming trial by jury for Kevin Sammut remains fully compatible with fundamental human rights.

The case was prompted by recent legislative changes which allow certain defendants in serious drug cases to opt for a bench trial instead of a jury.

Sammut is currently awaiting trial for the leadership and trafficking of cannabis, an offence for which the prosecution is seeking a life sentence. He was originally served with his trial notice on 26 March 2024.

In March 2025, Act VII of 2025 came into force, amending the Criminal Code to grant defendants the right to choose their adjudicator.

However, the Criminal Court had previously rejected Sammut’s request to exercise this choice, noting the law contained no transitional provisions for cases where the notification period had already expired before the amendment was enacted.

Lawyers for the accused argued that procedural laws should apply immediately to pending cases.

They contended that a professional judge provides a necessary safeguard against the inherent biases of a lay jury in high-profile drug cases.

The defence submitted that experience shows that, in drug-related trials, the accused is often at a disadvantage before the jury, given the prevailing public sentiment against such offences. They argued that, in these circumstances, a defendant does not begin the trial on an equal footing.

In its reasoning, the court defended the constitutional validity of the jury system. Citing ECHR case law, Judge Spiteri Bailey noted that "the institution of the lay jury cannot be called into question in this context". ​​The court observed that member states enjoy "considerable freedom" in how they organise their judicial systems.

The court further rejected claims of discrimination, ruling that Sammut failed to prove he was treated differently than any other defendant in his exact legal position.

The judge stated that a defendant notified of their trial before the law changed remains in the same legal position they were in previously, a position already deemed compatible with the right to a fair hearing.

The judgment also dismissed claims regarding the non-retroactivity of penalties.

The court clarified that the nature of the crime and the potential maximum penalty of life imprisonment remained unchanged, regardless of whether the facts are decided by a judge or a jury.

The court ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the plaintiff.