Pregnant Bulgarian pickpoket files appeal against 16-month sentence

Appeal application argues that the punishment was 'disproportionate and excessive,' especially in view of the fact that Ivanova had admitted to stealing the wallet as soon as she was arraigned on 25 August and calls for a reform of the legal aid system

A "disproportionate and excessive" custodial sentence and the system whereby legal aid lawyers were appointed have been criticised in an appeal filed this morning on behalf of a pregnant 34-year-old Bulgarian woman, jailed for 16 months after admitting to stealing a bus driver's wallet.

The appeal, signed by lawyers Franco Debono, Shazoo Ghaznavi, Amadeus Cachia and Robert Galea, argues that the punishment imposed was “disproportionate and excessive,” especially in view of the fact that Parashkeva Ivanova had admitted to stealing the wallet as soon as she was arraigned on 25 August.

The court had chosen not to go down the suspended sentence route, instead imposing an unusually harsh custodial sentence, despite being told that Ivanova has three more children, was living in poverty and was a victim of her circumstances. The prosecution had argued for an effective prison term, telling Magistrate Doreen Clarke that pickpockets were coming to Malta from abroad with the express purpose of stealing and that the lenient sentences by the court were not serving as a deterrent.

Although she had pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated theft, Ivanova's actions were not reflected in the charges. As she had been caught in the act, her lawyers argued, the execution of the crime had been interrupted and therefore, she should have been charged with attempted theft. This has a bearing on punishment, as attempts are punished far more lightly than completed offences.

During her arraignment, Ivanova had been defended by a lawyer appointed from the legal aid pool. This state-sponsored system allows persons who cannot afford to engage a lawyer of their choosing, to still benefit from legal representation when they are accused of a crime.

Ivanova's counsel pointed out that the pool of available lawyers under this system is small and includes lawyers whose area of specialisation is not criminal law, because legal aid lawyers are assigned by rota and not area of expertise. The application quotes the judgement given by the European Court of Human Rights in Husseyn and others vs Azerbaijan, which held that an accused is entitled to legal assistance “which is practical and effective and not theoretical or illusory.”

This principle was also endorsed by the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction in Daniel Holmes vs Attorney General et, which also held that Malta's system of legal aid is plagued by defects and grave shortcomings.

Lawyers a not remunerated for legal aid duties in a manner reflecting the responsibilities they assume, especially in cases of a certain gravity, it was argued. The fact that legal aid lawyers are paid by the office of the Attorney General-the public prosecutor runs contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The right to a fair trial should not be the preserve of the wealthy, the application argued.