A 73-year-old man cleared of drug trafficking has been awarded €19,000 in compensation because his case took nearly two decades to be concluded, “subjecting him to 19 years of limbo, legal uncertainty and financial and psychological hardship”. 

The constitutional court ruled this was a violation of Angelo Zahra’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

Zahra was arrested in 2001 and was granted bail as the compilation of evidence proceeded. His assets were subjected to a freezing order.

From 2005, 136 sittings took place, 21 witnesses testified, the case was adjourned 45 times and three different magistrates presided.

The compilation stage then came to a standstill when five of the prosecution witnesses, facing separate criminal proceedings, were unable to testify on account of possible self-incrimination.

The accused’s statement was also deemed non-admissible as evidence since he was not afforded legal assistance at the time.

And the statements of two of the alleged co-conspirators were ordered to be discarded since they had never testified in court nor faced cross-examination. Another of the alleged co-conspirators died.

In 2020, the court finally declared that the prosecution had failed to prove the drug conspiracy, pointing out that call intercepts lacked both date and time as well as phone numbers.

Zahra then filed a constitutional case claiming breach of his rights.

Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff noted that the criminal case brought by the police against Zahra was not so complicated that it needed 19 years to make its way through court. While it was true that some of its witnesses had separate proceedings, this did not justify the delay in concluding the case.

The judge also noted that, in a decision by now Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, the court had already declared that Zahra had suffered a breach of his rights. However, damages were not requested at that stage.

"Nineteen years in a life of a human being is a very long time."- Justice Lawrence Mintoff

Mr Justice Mintoff said it did not appear Zahra was to be faulted for the lengthy proceedings. While there were times when Zahra did not appear in court, there were several more sittings when nothing happened.

Once, the proceedings were stalled because the process had to be reconstructed after having been destroyed in a court fire.

The court observed there was no absolute term nor any one determining factor to assess whether the duration of proceedings was reasonable or not. All the circumstances of the case had to be taken into consideration.

Mr Justice Mintoff said it was not only the judicial proceedings against Zahra which infringed his fundamental rights but all the consequences of such proceedings.

“Nineteen years in a life of a human being is a very long time,” he said, adding that Zahra could not continue to live his life the way he was used to because the proceedings against him were never concluded.

“Instead, he was subjected to 19 years of limbo, legal uncertainty and financial and psychological hardship,” the court said as he awarded Zahra €19,000 in compensation.

Lawyers Joseph Giglio and Sarah Mifsud assisted Zahra.