The horrific experience that a Bulgarian national residing in Malta went through when he decided to purchase audio equipment proves one thing: delaying justice is not only to deny it – it could also prove deadly.
Emil Marinov, 58, who could no longer work after the savage unprovoked attack in a Ta’ Qali country lane one summer night two years ago, was struck 26 times with a butcher’s clever. Within days, Elliott Paul Busuttil, 38, was charged with his attempted murder.
This is the same Busuttil who last week was accused of murdering 62-year-old taxi owner Mario Farrugia. The victim’s decaying body was found in the boot of a car with over 40 stab wounds. The police do not exclude the possibility that this violent frenzy was also unprovoked.
Marinov last met his alleged assailant in court only a few days ago, shortly before Farrugia’s body was found. The accused had a fresh haircut, “nice clothes, smiling and talking – like normal, like nothing had happened”, the traumatised Marinov told Times of Malta in a moving interview.
Does anybody blame him for wondering if the judicial system is there to protect criminals rather than law-abiding citizens?
The victims of repeat offenders would be asking the same question, as would the loved ones of those killed or hurt while the course of justice took its own time or because reports of violence – especially of a domestic nature – were not acted upon.
Some blame the bail system. The crux of the problem, however, is the way criminal cases proceed at a snail’s pace. The passage of time only increases the pressure on the court to grant bail.
Criminal lawyers argue that bail is a right and that remanding an accused person in custody should be the exception not the rule. Other legal practitioners maintain that, although innocence must always be presumed, any risk the accused may pose to themselves or others has to be taken into account when granting bail.
Criminal lawyers argue that bail is a right and that remanding an accused person in custody should be the exception not the rule
The court is empowered by law to assess “the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused, as well as any other matter which appears to be relevant”, among other things.
In deciding to grant bail or otherwise, the judge or magistrate often takes a very prudent approach, especially when civilian witnesses have yet to testify. But recent experience would indicate that, certainly where violence is involved, no professional expertise is sought to determine whether the accused person is able to control the barbarous tendencies they may be harbouring within.
The real challenge, however, is to address the practice of hearing criminal cases in dribs and drabs. It is obvious that Malta’s justice system has a major problem if a simple, straightforward case is still pending in court two years after the person is arraigned.
Why should the bill of indictment in the case of the 2020 Sliema double murder have been filed on the last day before it became mandatory to grant bail? Why do committal proceedings last years instead of the statutory one month. Hopefully, some headway in addressing court delays will be made soon. Legal amendments to shorten the compilation of evidence stage in criminal proceedings – a colonial hangover – are reported to be at an advanced stage.
The Dutch experience, for one, proves it is possible to do things differently. There, bail is not an issue in serious cases because they are decided up to appeal stage in less than six months.
A better balance urgently needs to be struck between the right to personal liberty and the right to life.