Man wins compensation after nine-year court delay

The Civil Court has awarded a man, who had been accused of drug possession, €4,000 in compensation after it found that the eight years taken by the Criminal Court to decide on his case went against his right to a fair hearing.

The applicant, Adrian Abela, had been arrested in 2004 on charges of drug possession. Proceedings started in 2007, and he had appeared before the Magistrate’s Court for this first time in 2008. 

Nine years passed before the court, in 2016, decided on his case, acquitting him of cannabis possession, selling the drug and committing the crime within 100 metres of an area frequented by young people. 

A total of 12 years had elapsed since he had been arrested, and Abela has asked the Civil Court to recognise his fundamental rights had been breached, and to grant a remedy.

The Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided by Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon, has now decided that the Court’s delay in deciding on Abela’s case was “unjustified and unreasonable.”

It saw how the prosecution had initially taken two years before it started to bring forward its evidence against Abela, and had not explained why this had taken so long. It had then taken eight years to submit all its evidence.

“During the majority of sittings, nothing happened except requests for deferral for some reason or another,” the Court said, highlighting that the case was “not complex at all” and that there was “no reason or justification” for the delay.

It also saw how three magistrates had presided over the case, with the longest delay having taken place under the first magistrate, who “wasn’t firm enough with the prosecution for it to bring its evidence.”

“Out of 26 sittings, only six were used effectively,” the Court noted.

On the other hand, the Court saw how Abela had not turned up for a number of sittings, sometimes because he hadn’t been summoned, and had been late a few times.

However, when he was required to bring forth his own evidence, he managed to do so in just a single sitting, the Court remarked.

“The delays cannot be attributed to a single party,” the Court said, “If blame had to be apportioned according to the degree, the greatest portion would lie on the prosecution’s shoulders, who only brought three persons to the witness stand during all that time.”

“The second greatest portion of blame would be the Court before the case was handed over to the second and third magistrates. Had it exercised more control and discipline over the parties involved, the case would have lasted a shorter and more reasonable time.”

The Court said that Abela was last on the level of blame, due to his absence from a few sittings.

Given this, the Court said it was upholding Abela’s request for it to declare that the time taken for procedures to conclude went against his fundamental and constitutional right for a fair trial, as found in the European Convention for Human Rights and Malta’s Constitution.

It also upheld his request for a remedy and ordered the Attorney General to pay the applicant €4,000 in moral compensation for the violation he incurred.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Amadeus Cachia assisted the applicant.

Read more: Court frees Zejtun man of 2004 drug possession after prosecution fails to confirm illegality of substances