Constitutional Court overturns judgment on human rights violation

Charles Muscat, known as 'Il-Pips' from Mosta, suffered no breach of his  fundamental human rights when releasing a statement to the Police while under arrest, without having a lawyer present.

Muscat - who was released last year after serving two-thirds of a 25 year jail term for a double murder committed in Mosta in 1994 - is still waiting to be tried for allegedly trafficking in heroin and cocaine.

He made his statement to the police in 2002 in connection to a major investigation regarding the interception of a large quantity of drugs, which was allegedly masterminded from inside the prisons by a number of notorious drug barons.

In the wake of the controversy relating to the application of the law to come in force, which had been passed in Parliament in 2002 by unanimous approval but left dormant for years before being put in force in 2010.

Muscat had filed a claim before the Civil Court that he had not been assisted by a lawyer because in 2002 there was no right at law for an accused person to be assisted by a lawyer. 

He stressed that the statement was in violation of his fundamental human right to a fair hearing and requested the court to grant him a remedy.
This claim was upheld in October 2011, leading the Attorney General to appeal the decision on behalf of government.

Ruling

In its judgement, the Constitutional Court declared that the fundamental human right protected by the Constitution and the European Convention of Human rights was that to a fair hearing.

Consisting of fair hearing within a reasonable time, Muscat's rights were never breached, as the Court's role was not one to establishing the plaintiff's guilt or innocence, or whether he was assisted by a lawyer while being interrogated by the police.

In fact, the Constitutional Court delved into whether there were any failures during the proceedings Muscat was facing, and if these failing could be tantamount to a violation of his  fundamental human rights.

The Constitutional Court said that when Muscat was interrogated, he was already in prison, and "quite mature," while also noting that he had already had experience of interrogations, and therefore was "no vulnerable minor who could be intimidated by police during the same interrogations."

The Constitutional Court ruled that Muscat made no allegation of violence against him by the investigative authorities, and his statement was not extracted by force.

It added that Muscat was still facing criminal proceedings, and that Court would

Would take consideration the contents of the statement, Muscat is now attempting to retract.

Muscat is assisted by a lawyer at all times, and the presiding judge during an eventual trial would be would warn the jurors of the danger of relying solely on the accused' statement when deliberating a verdict.