PN insiders caution Grech to moderate mis-informed stand on drug reform

Bernard Grech went on Facebook live from the living room of his home to denounce changes to the drug law proposed in a government White Paper. 

The rudimentary live broadcast came a week after the White Paper was unveiled with Grech claiming government wanted to allow people to “carry 500 ecstasy pills” for personal use. 

But now, the Opposition leader is being cautioned internally against this latest crusade built on a misinformed stand of the proposed reform. 

It would seem Grech acted on a spur, after taking the cue from a Facebook post by former PN MP Jason Azzopardi, who tried to alarm parents with claims the reform would make it legal to possess up to 500 ecstasy pills. 

The reform piloted by Justice Minister Jonathan Attard a fortnight ago does no such thing. 

How a reform to help drug dependents got caught up in misinformation and lack of explanation 

Indeed, the law today already sets drug amount limits, which act as guidelines for magistrates when deciding whether to transform the court into a drugs court or continue as a court of criminal jurisdiction in the case of drug trafficking charges. 

The White Paper is proposing widening the existing limits from 300 ecstasy pills to 500, from 300g cannabis to 500g, and from 100g to 200g for cocaine and heroin. 

The proposed change will extend the leeway magistrates already have in deciding whether a person charged before them with trafficking but who is also a drug addict should qualify for a probationary sentence. It will remain illegal to possess any of these drugs and trafficking will remain subject to a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. 

Sources close to government, who were granted anonymity to speak clearly about internal matters, have admitted that the Opposition leader’s criticism caught them off guard. 

“No one was expecting Bernard Grech to attack the reform on the basis of misinformation and at a stage when this proposal is still a White Paper open for consultation,” the sources said. 

Lack of proper build-up 

But they also commented on the lack of proper explanation by the ministry on the aims of the reform in the lead up to the White Paper. 

“Drug reform is always a sensitive subject but it seems we learnt nothing from the fiasco surrounding Bill 28 (which introduced exceptions to abortion) and the Jean Paul Sofia inquiry when government was forced to backtrack on its initial stands following widespread opposition,” the sources said. “There should have been a proper build-up to the proposals and the intention behind them.” 

The Justice Ministry has now been forced to publish an additional explanatory document with the White Paper to address the controversy and clarify the misinformation that has conditioned the debate. 

Meanwhile, within the Nationalist Party lone voices have been cautioning Bernard Grech to be careful. 

Grech has accused the government of pandering to drug traffickers and called for the White Paper to be withdrawn outright. A statement from the party signed by its justice spokesperson Karol Aquilina and social policy spokesperson Stephen Spiteri, reflected the party leader’s opposition to the reform but stopped short of calling for the White Paper’s withdrawal. 

Draconian to call for White Paper withdrawal 

Sources within the PN said that during a meeting of the parliamentary group some MPs called for a more cautious approach. 

“The fear is that the criticism will backfire and the party will end up with egg on its face since the proposed reform does not make it legal to possess 500 ecstasy pills as Bernard Grech has been arguing,” the sources said, describing the leader’s call for the complete withdrawal of a discussion document as “a draconian move”. 

The sources pointed at the more nuanced approach adopted by the Chamber of Advocates, which called for benchmarks rather than fixed amounts to avoid injustices caused by the rigidity of the numbers proposed. 

Indeed, in its submissions, the Chamber led by former PN electoral commission chief Peter Fenech, applauded the reform, in what has been interpreted within PN circles as a rebuke to Grech’s stand. 

Meanwhile, Sedqa, the national drug rehabilitation agency, welcomed the reform but asked for lower limits than those proposed. 

The national agency that deals with drug dependency noted that a balance must be struck between judiciary flexibility towards genuine dependency cases and having the necessary means to prevent anyone trying to benefit from leniency by using a “pseudo drug problem.” 

Other proposals 

The proposed reform was drafted by lawyer Alex Scerri Herrera, chair of the Sentencing Advisory Policy Board, and includes several other suggestions. 

The reform proposes an increase in the composition of the Drug Offenders Rehabilitation Board, the clarification of the criteria for a court to convert itself into a drugs court, and the introduction of a requirement that the board give reasons for its decisions and communicate its decisions to other courts.  

The other proposals include non-jury trials for serious drug offences and allowing prison inmates who are caught with drugs, while serving time, to qualify for rehabilitation instead of automatic re-imprisonment when they are convicted for that offence. This often takes place after they finish serving their original sentences. 

The Justice Minister has said the intention of the reform is to give addicts who sold drugs to finance their habit the opportunity to get the help they need to clean themselves up. 

Drug courts and drug limits 

What are drug courts? 

Drug courts are set up by magistrates and can sentence people found guilty to rehabilitation rather than jail. They do not hear cases related to personal use of drugs. 

What is the situation today? 

Magistrates can choose to set up a drug court if a person accused with drug trafficking is caught with a maximum of 300g for cannabis, 300 ecstasy pills or 100g of cocaine or heroin. However, the decision whether to transform the court into a drug court is at the absolute discretion of the magistrate and only if they are convinced that the accused, who has to have a drug dependency problem, wants to undergo a rehabilitation programme. 

What is the reform proposing? 

The reform leaves everything the same but is proposing to increase the limits to 500g for cannabis, 500 pills for ecstasy and 200g for cocaine and heroin respectively. It will be extending leniency, which remains at the discretion of the magistrate, to more addict-traffickers. 

Does this mean somebody can carry 500 ecstasy pills and claim these are for personal use? 

Absolutely not, just as today nobody caught with 300 ecstasy pills can claim these are for personal use. The reform has nothing to do with drug possession for personal use. 

What is the maximum sentence for drug trafficking and will this change? 

The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and this will not change.