Constitutional court to decide on co-accused testimony dispute

A man on trial for heroin possession has taken his case before the Constitutional Court, claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached by the Court of Magistrates' decision to admit the testimony of his alleged accomplice.

The case dates back to July 2005, when Christopher Schembri, 41, from Hamrun had been arrested on charges of complicity in heroin trafficking. He was charged two years later.

However, the only witness in this case was a certain Raymond Gerada, who the defence is arguing, should be deemed an accomplice in the crime.

At the time of the commission of the offence, it was not possible to find guilt solely on the strength of the testimony of an alleged accomplice. In 2006 and therefore, one year before his arraignment, the sections of the Criminal Code which dealt with the value of testimony of an accomplice were amended to allow such a conviction, albeit “with great caution.”

Schembri's lawyers had requested the court of Magistrates to not apply the law as amended, but the law in force at the time, arguing that the non-retroactivity of penal law was an established principle. However, this argument was not upheld by the court was dismissed in 2015.

Having exhausted all other remedies, Schembri filed the application, arguing that it breached his right to a fair trial.

Lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt, signing the application, argued that the amendments only affect substantive law, which is used to determine whether a crime has been committed, define what charges may apply and decide whether the evidence supports the charges and not procedural law, which regulates what evidence is admissible.