A final judgment on punishment to kidney transplant patient Christopher Bartolo was suspended pending the outcome of constitutional proceedings, the Constitutional Court has declared.
The decision was delivered this week in the ongoing court saga centred around the man who was arraigned before the Gozo courts back in May 2013, over charges of cannabis trafficking.
Three years later, Bartolo filed constitutional proceedings claiming that his fundamental right to a fair hearing had been breached.
The following year, in April 2017, Bartolo registered an admission in the criminal proceedings and was subsequently condemned to a five-year effective jail term and a €15,000 fine.
His lawyers appealed that judgment on the grounds of punishment and final judgment was scheduled for January 2021.
However, delivery of that judgment had been suspended following a decision by the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Toni Abela who, in December 2020, barely weeks before the criminal appeal decision was due, upheld Bartolo’s request for an interim measure.
Although interim measures were generally reserved to specific cases such as when the applicant risked deportation and consequent life-threatening circumstances, given the particular circumstances of the case, Bartolo’s request was upheld.
Criminal appeal proceedings were suspended.
However, the State Advocate filed an appeal against that December judgment.
The matter landed before the Constitutional Court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, as acting Chief Justice, and Mr Justices Tonio Mallia and Anthony Ellul who, earlier this week, turned down the State Advocate’s appeal.
After outlining the various stages in the criminal and constitutional proceedings making up the complex scenario of Bartolo’s court saga, the Constitutional Court concluded that the first court had made a “wise decision when ordering the suspension of the [criminal] appeal”.
That decision had been taken within the particular circumstances of this case, the court also noted, stating that it “fully agreed” with Judge Abela’s reasoning that the final criminal judgment could have an irreversible effect upon the accused if he were eventually to succeed in his constitutional challenge.
The issue of guilt had already been decided upon in view of Bartolo’s admission and the most he could achieve was a reduction in punishment, the court observed.
However, in the ongoing constitutional proceedings, Bartolo’s lawyers are claiming that his fundamental rights have been breached in different ways, one of which was linked to his claim that the Drug Dependence (Treatment Not Imprisonment) Act was to apply to his case too.
It was only the amount of drugs found in the accused’s possession that was to determine whether he could benefit from having his case heard by a Drugs Court, Bartolo’s lawyers argued.
This would spare the accused an effective jail term.
The AG’s dual role as legal advisor and prosecutor also gave rise to a conflict of interest, argued Bartolo’s lawyers who also claimed that the drug had been analysed in a laboratory that was not duly accredited.
All these claims were still to be decided upon in the ongoing constitutional proceedings and until that happened, final judgment in the criminal appeal is to be suspended.
Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Francesca Zarb are assisting Bartolo.