A court has thrown out a breach of rights claim by Liam Debono, who said his right to a fair hearing had been breached after no preliminary pleas were raised before the Criminal Court by his then lawyer.

Debono had hit the headlines in 2018, when as a 17-year-old, he mowed down traffic policeman Simon Schembri while driving a silver Mercedes in Luqa.

The officer was dragged for several metres and suffered widespread friction burns across his chest. His hand had to be amputated above the wrist.

The underage driver was subsequently charged with attempted murder and a raft of other charges related to that incident.

Debono filed constitutional proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, claiming he was denied his right to raise preliminary pleas. Therefore, his right to a fair hearing had been breached. He also complained that he did not have access to a lawyer and was disregarded completely.

The proceedings were filed against the Police Commissioner, Attorney General, State Advocate and the Legal Aid Malta Agency.

The Police Commissioner, Attorney General and the Legal Aid Malta Agency argued by way of a preliminary plea that they should be declared non-suited since the plaintiff did not complain of any breach that was allegedly caused by them.

They also argued that Debono’s application is inconsistent and contradictory, and if there were any shortcomings by his lawyer, then he should proceed against him and not against the state.

They also argued that the application was frivolous and vexatious and referred to another case filed by Debono in 2021, where he had claimed his right to a fair hearing had been breached due to negative publicity in the media.

In that case, the court had denied the application.

The defendants also argued that Debono was doing “all he could to stop the criminal proceedings against him". Proceedings have been pending for over six years.

During the proceedings, Debono presented an affidavit wherein he confirmed he was awaiting trial by jury for attempted murder.

He said that at the time the Bill of Indictment was served to him, he was residing at Corradino Correctional Facility.

He claimed he informed his then lawyer, Dustin Camilleri, about it and they agreed that the latter would present a note with his preliminary pleas and a list of witnesses on Debono’s behalf.

He also claimed that on the day of the sitting, he got to know that his defence lawyer did not present the note in the records of the case, and it was no longer possible to do so since the time had lapsed.

Camilleri also renounced the brief during the sitting.

He added that since he was in prison, he could do nothing more.

Camilleri took the witness stand and told the court he got his warrant in 2016.

He said that he started assisting Debono at a time when the criminal proceedings before the Court of Magistrates were at an advanced stage.

The lawyer said he did not communicate with Debono over the preliminary pleas between June 12 and the sitting on August 27 of 2020.

However, he did explain to Debono and asked him to inform him when he receives the Bill of Indictment, since there was a deadline by which the preliminary pleas could be raised. They also spoke about payment.

On August 27, or the day before, the lawyer was before the Criminal Court assisting another client when he saw Debono.

Camilleri asked Debono what he was doing there, to which the latter replied that they had to decide on a date for the jury.

The lawyer asked him whether he had received anything, to which he replied in the affirmative, saying he had received some papers.

Camilleri recalled asking Debono why he had not informed him, to which he replied that he was “ashamed” since he had not paid him yet.

The witness insisted this was not a money issue and that he had directed him to inform him immediately once he was served with the Bill of Indictment.

The lawyer checked the documents and realised that the time had lapsed, and he immediately informed the presiding judge he could no longer represent Debono in the proceedings since he had not informed him in a timely manner. He also renounced the brief during the sitting.

When he was cross-examined, Camilleri told the court he visited the plaintiff three times at the Corradino Correctional Facility before he was served with the Bill of Indictment.

He confirmed he spoke to Debono’s relatives and added he did not have their number.

The lawyer also said it was not possible that the plaintiff called him and he did not reply.

At the time, he added, he had some two to three clients - one of whom was Debono - who were in prison.

Therefore, it was easy for him to trace who had called him from the Corradino Correctional Facility.

Moreover, when a client in detention does not manage to contact their lawyer, they would inform the prison's administration to let the lawyer know.

The court, in its considerations, observed that the right to a fair hearing has additional safeguards when it comes to criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the accused has a right to a defence, whether through a lawyer of their choice or legal aid.

It observed that, from Debono’s affidavit and Camilleri’s testimony, the former had approached the latter to assist him while facing proceedings before the Court of Magistrates, and therefore the Police Commissioner and the Legal Aid Malta Agency were non-suited as defendants in this case.

From the evidence, it emerged that the shortcomings in Debono’s defence could be solely attributed to him, the court ruled, noting that the plaintiff was passive and had not attempted to contact his lawyer after he was served with the Bill of Indictment in order to prepare his defence.

The court held that from the evidence it emerged that while Camilleri had instructed Debono to communicate with him once he received the Bill of Indictment, the latter took no steps to communicate with his lawyer nor did he give him further instructions.

It also transpired that Debono did not pay his lawyer.

The court dismissed Debono’s application.

Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff presided over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.