A couple has successfully challenged the mandatory forfeiture of bail money in case of a conviction for breaching bail conditions, benefiting from recent legal amendments.
Maria Patricia De Las Heras and Christoph Jorge Valdivia Docio, both 36-year old Spanish nationals, were fined €500 and ordered to forfeit €300 out of the €5,000 personal guarantee that had been imposed upon each of them as one of the conditions for bail.
The two had been arrested last year, along with four other Spanish friends, when they were caught drinking at a Spinola bar one evening, at a time when commercial establishments were in COVID-19 lockdown.
The group of six had allegedly reacted aggressively when police turned up to break up the party, taking down their personal details.
All six suspects were subsequently arraigned.
Three of them, including De Las Heras and Valdivia Docio, pleaded not guilty and were granted bail against a personal guarantee and under a curfew.
Yet, some three months later the couple once more landed in hot water after being found at Paceville at 4am, well beyond their curfew hours.
The couple faced fresh charges concerning the alleged breach of bail and registered an admission upon arraignment.
But pending the drawing up of a pre-sentencing report, their lawyers filed an application for a reference to the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, challenging a “blanket provision” in the Criminal Code.
In terms of that provision, forfeiture of the bail bond was mandatory once the alleged breach of court orders was proved and that conviction could also lead to the accused’s re-arrest besides a jail term and/or fine.
Pending proceedings, the law was amended to allow a wider margin of discretion to the judiciary in such circumstances.
When delivering judgment the court, presided over by magistrate Josette Demicoli, made reference to that amendment by virtue of Act 29 of 2021.
The court also took note of reports filed by two probation officers who confirmed that both accused led a stable life, had a fixed job and had been living in Malta for years.
De Las Heras had no addictions and had fully cooperated, while Valdivia Docio also occasionally worked part time.
Although the breach of curfew had been sufficiently proved by their own admission, “everything had to be taken in the right perspective,” said the court, pointing out that it had been an isolated incident of being caught outside beyond curfew hours.
Consequently the court deemed that a fine would be appropriate punishment.
Both co-accused were ordered to pay a €500 fine and to forfeit €300 out of their €5000 personal guarantee, but were spared re-arrest.
Inspector Leeroy Balzan Engerer prosecuted.
Lawyers Franco Debono and Francesca Zarb were defence counsel.