Judge says flexibility needed in immigration cases

Two men who used forged documents to seek asylum in Malta after leaving Greece, have had their prison sentences confirmed on appeal.

But in handing down judgment, the court said the time had come for such cases not to be approached “rigidly”.

The men had arrived in Malta along with two Turkish mothers and their young children in July. The mothers were also jailed and separated from their children, only to be released on appeal.

Madam Justice Edwina Grima said that investigators and prosecutors should investigate every migrant's particular circumstances and identify “genuine cases where political asylum was deserved", as she handed down judgment in the appeal filed by Yousef Hammat and Mohamed Lassad Briki.

The judge noted that the rule followed by the courts in passport cases - always taking them as “an open and shut case,” with the accused arraigned under arrest, immediately admitting guilt and being sentenced to prison - “doesn’t appear to be serving as any deterrent to whoever is desperate and willing to undertake any serious risk to escape the problems [in their homeland].”

“It is the opinion of this court, however, that the remedy is not to be found in the nature and quality of the sentencing by our courts of these persons who enter the country illegally. It is the State’s duty to see that international conventions protecting political asylum seekers are respected…” said the judge, adding that even if condemned for the crimes they committed, they are to be given all the help they required to apply for political asylum and their applications processed “with the greatest of speed.”

Unlike in the case of the two mothers who were travelling with the men, here the court said, there were no special or extraordinary circumstances.

The issues raised in the appeal application, which were also mentioned by the defence counsel during his arguments “are not supported by the acts which do not contain the slightest evidence that confirms what they are submitting,” said the judge.

There were no circumstances meriting different considerations to those made by the first court, ruled the judge, confirming the sentence. Madam Justice Grima also noted that the punishment of 6 months in prison was not excessive, but was the “absolute minimum.”