The automatic forfeiture of a bail bond when an accused person breaches bail violates the person’s fundamental rights, lawyers argued in court on Wednesday.
This argument was made in an application filed by lawyers for Jason Caruana, a 43-year old Floriana resident who was arraigned for allegedly breaching bail conditions.
Caruana had been found alongside Daniel Muka, the 25-year old Albanian national last month in a dramatic police raid at a dilapidated Floriana residence, in connection with the Sliema double murder of Christian Pandolfino and his partner Ivor Maciejowski.
Caruana had been released, only to be re-arrested for allegedly breaching bail conditions on September 7, when he was found outside at around 10:20pm, beyond a court-imposed curfew.
Over the past months, Caruana had also allegedly failed to sign the bail book on nine occasions, prosecuting Inspector Priscilla Caruana Lee told the court.
A request for bail by the man’s lawyers, Franco Debono and Amadeus Cachia, was turned down by the court, presided over by Magistrate Astrid May Grima.
The prosecution also called for forfeiture of the €3500 bail guarantee.
That decision prompted the lawyers to file an application, arguing that amendments to the criminal code in 2015 had created a situation whereby the court had no discretion when deciding upon forfeiture of the bail bond. A “blanket provision” had made that forfeiture mandatory, thus exposing the accused to “arbitrary and disproportionate” punishment and thereby breaching his fundamental rights.
As the law stood today, there could be “elements of shocking disproportionality” between the breach and the punishment meted out, the lawyers said.
Moreover, the law placed discretion in the hands of the prosecuting officer when deciding whether to arraign the accused under arrest or else file an application before the court presiding over his case. That discretion also breached the accused’s fundamental rights, the lawyers argued, further pointing out that in this case, the alleged breach of bail had not resulted in the commission of a crime nor had it affected the proceedings pending which Caruana had been granted bail.
The lawyers thus asked for a reference to the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, for a pronouncement on the matter, claiming that the situation violated the accused’s right to a fair hearing and protection against discrimination.