Judge throws out Jimmy Magro claim of unfair hearing in corruption probe

A judge has thrown out a constitutional application filed by former Labour Party secretary-genereal Jimmy Magro, in which he claimed his right to a fair hearing had been breached by a report published by the Permanent Commission Against Corruption.

Magro had been the subject of a complaint to the Commission in June 2016, in which he was accused of accepting bribes in connection with a public call for tenders. The Commission had met the complainant and heard a number of witnesses. It had also requested Magro to appear before it and he had done so, more than once.

In January 2017, the Commission had prepared a report, asserting that between July and August 2014, Magro had been involved in a case of bribery. The report stated, however, that the man was still presumed innocent and that the final judgment would be in the hands of a court of law.

But as soon as the report was issued, Magro was suspended from his job and removed from the executive position he held in a public corporation.

Magro had filed the constitutional application in 2018, arguing that he had suffered “huge damage” as a result of the corruption probe, during which he says he was not given the opportunity to properly defend himself.

The Prime Minister, State Advocate, Justice Minister and the commission were all named as respondents in the application signed by lawyers Stefan Camilleri, Stephen Tonna Lowell and Natalino Caruana de Brincat on behalf of Magro.

Mr. Justice Joseph R. Micallef said that while Magro complained of loss of reputation and financial hardship, the principal complaint was an alleged lack of a fair hearing, that as a result of which, he was not in a position to defend himself and after the findings of the Commission, could find himself subjected to criminal procedures.

The Commission had argued that Constitutional safeguards to a fair hearing did not apply to its proceedings. This was rebutted by Magro, who retorted that the principles of natural justice applied equally to both.

The judge noted that Article 39 of the Constitution applied to persons accused of a crime before an independent and impartial court empowered to find guilt or innocence of a charge. The Commission doesn’t decide or judge guilt, but puts forward its recommendations to the competent authorities who would then decide whether to press charges or not.

Similarly, he said, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, spoke of a person charged with an offence, but “it cannot be said that the applicant was somehow charged with a crime before the Commission.”

The court did not agree with Magro’s claim that the Commission acted as a tribunal. “Contrary to that alleged by the applicant, the Commission did not impose any sanction on him.”