An alleged human trafficker who was held in preventive custody beyond the legal limit of 20 months was released on Thursday. 

The decision was delivered by a magistrates’ court after lawyers assisting Jorge Emilio Herrera Mendez - a 35-year-old former hotel attendant - kickstarted the special procedure known as habeas corpus to have his state of continued arrest declared illegal. 

Mendez, a Colombian national, was arraigned two years ago alongside two other men and a woman, over accusations of forcing a number of Columbian and Venezuelan women into prostitution while living off the earnings. 

One of the alleged victims had testified that she used to offer sex against payment before being offered a job by hotel manager Roque Borg, who allegedly operated sex sites and paid her €70 for sex the first time they met. 

Borg was subsequently charged alongside Mendez, cab driver Sylvan Pace and Amira Khadraoui, all pleading not guilty to various charges linking them to the alleged abuse. 

While criminal proceedings continued, two of the co-accused opted to have their case decided by the magistrates’ court.

Mendez chose to go to trial before the criminal court. 

However, in terms of law, Mendez had to wait until proceedings against those two former co-accused were definitively concluded before the Attorney General could issue the bill of indictment against him. 

According to the Criminal Code, in such circumstances, the term for issuing the bill of indictment paving the way to the trial begins to run from the date when final judgment is delivered by the magistrates’ court against the other co-accused. 

However, this legal scenario gave rise to an “anomalous situation” in Mendez’s case. 

The law states that every person facing criminal charges carrying a punishment exceeding nine years imprisonment must be released from preventive custody within 20 months after the start of proceedings unless granted bail before the lapse of that time limit.

In Mendez’s case, that term lapsed four months ago. 

So while waiting for proceedings against his former co-accused to be concluded, Mendez found himself in an “anomalous situation” stemming from this legal grey area as to whether the 20-month time limit was to continue running or not. 

When delivering judgment, the court, presided over by Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit, observed that the criminal code provided specific instances when the time limit was to be suspended. 

Those instances were not applicable to Mendez’s case. 

In light of this lacuna, the court concluded that the 20 months continued to run. 

“If the court were to argue otherwise it would commit a grave injustice possibly resulting in a breach of constitutional norms and fundamental rights of the accused who had the right to legal certainty,” said the magistrate. 

Citing constitutional judgments on the rule of law and the related principles of legal certainty, proportionality and protection against arbitrariness, the magistrate upheld the defence’s arguments.

Since the accused’s continued arrest had exceeded the legal time limit, he was to be released under a number of court conditions.

Lawyers Jose’ Herrera and Herman Mula were defence counsel.