Schembri, Mizzi request for constitutional review of freezing order time limit upheld

Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi have won the right to challenge the constitutionality of the legal proviso that gives defendants seven days to challenge a freezing order.

The pair, who face corruption and money laundering charges linked to the Vitals case, claim the seven-day limit was discriminatory when considering that the prosecution had no such limitation. The Attorney General had objected to the request.

Judge Edwina Grima upheld Schembri’s and Mizzi’s request for a constitutional reference, saying that the issue was neither frivolous nor vexatious.

The judge ruled that freezing orders could trigger “draconian consequences” and impact the defendants’ fundamental right to enjoy their property.

A freezing order shuts out the defendants’ ability to enjoy their property while criminal proceedings continued. The law does not allow defendants to claim ulterior revisions of the court order.

Schembri and Mizzi were slapped with a multi-million euro freezing order when the Vitals corruption case got underway last months.

The judge noted that the law had to strike a balance between the defendants’ rights and ensuring that proceeds of crime will not continue being used. However, she said the seven working days limit imposed on defendants to contest the freezing order was too short a period and thus it was right for the Constitutional Court to examine its validity.

The judge ordered that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court and the statutory seven-working day limit to be suspended until the constitutional matter was decided.

However, in the meantime, the freezing order issued by the Magistrates’ Court in the Vitals case still stands.

Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo are representing Schembri and Mizzi in the proceedings.