When discussing improvements in the administration of justice, it is good to have as wide a discussion as possible and to consider all tried and tested procedures but also innovative ones. However, it would be wrong to only focus on symptoms rather than the cause. That is a pitfall one must watch out for even in the debate on whether it is time to introduce electronic tagging in the pre-trial stage.

Electronic tagging has long been coming in this country. It has featured in parliamentary debates, raised by at least two judges, mentioned in a white paper and also included in a proposed law in late 2021.

The matter is also before the constitutional court, with a man accused of a double murder claiming that failure to introduce electronic tagging as an alternative to detention violates his human rights.

Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera feels that remote monitoring would serve a twofold purpose. Society, she says, would be better protected through constant monitoring of alleged criminals and the accused could be granted bail under less onerous conditions.

Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja argues that electronic tagging is “more serious, effective and efficacious than the current system whereby the accused must sign at a police station”.

All valid points that should be taken into account when discussing the introduction of “modern corrective systems”, as a public consultation process held in May 2021 sought to do. The document only referred to electronic tagging in the case of people sentenced to an effective prison term. The idea, it explained, is for such a system to “serve in suspending the incarceration of individuals from the correctional facilities, thus facilitating their reintegration into society, while providing reassurance to the community and victims of crime”.

A bill proposing to regulate the use of electronic tagging for those who commit minor crimes and as prisoners on parole or leave had been moved a few months later. However, it remains draft legislation.

It is about time that some solid and sound decisions start being made and implemented. Easing the burden on an overpopulated prison and not keeping an accused person – hence, still innocent – behind bars unnecessarily pending sentencing are commendable aims. Of course, there would need to be in place the right administrative structure allowing tagging to occur.

However, one must be careful not to fall into the trap of solving some of the symptoms but failing to robustly address the real cause: delayed justice. Indeed, as Times of Malta has already cautioned editorially, there is the danger that resorting to electronic tagging could ease pressure on the justice delivery chain to speed up proceedings.

In addressing the issue of electronic tagging, notably at pre-trial stage, a person’s right to liberty as enshrined in Article 5 of the European Human Rights Convention must always feature high. Indeed, it should be the topmost concern.

Enunciating the right to liberty, the convention demands that a person who is arrested or detained must “be brought promptly before a judge… and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial”.

It also ought to be borne in mind that electronic tagging could well give rise to issues of invasion of privacy. The right to respect for private and family life is also safeguarded by the European convention.

So, the matter is far more complex than the impression being given by some that electronic tagging is the ideal solution to preventive custody problems. There clearly needs to be more thought.