Judicial delays win man his freedom

A man who was sent to jail last year, 20 years after he had committed the crime for which he was jailed, was yesterday set free by the Civil Court, in the first judgment of its kind, which found that his fundamental human right to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

Mr Justice Gino Camilleri ordered the immediate release of John Bugeja after finding that the delays in the judicial proceedings had violated his rights.

Bugeja had filed his constitutional application against the attorney general and the police commissioner through his lawyers Dr Roberto Montalto and Dr José Herrera.

He was arraigned in court in 1983 and charged with theft, sexual assault and unlawful detention. The Magistrates' Court sentenced him to six years in jail in April 1993 and the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed the judgment in October 2002.

Mr Justice Camilleri noted that it had taken the courts almost 20 years to decide Bugeja's case, which meant he went to jail as the father of six children at the age of 38 for a crime he had committed when he was 18.

The authorities submitted that Bugeja was responsible for the delays in the court proceedings, for he had utilised delaying tactics.

This submission was dismissed by Mr Justice Camilleri who noted that when his case was still before the Magistrates' Court, Bugeja had requested constitutional references to the Civil Court.

These procedures had taken some time to be concluded, but this delay was not attributable to Bugeja.

It was up to the courts to ensure that procedures were dealt with speedily, said Mr Justice Camilleri.

The court concluded that there had been unreasonable delay in the criminal procedures, particularly before the Court of Criminal Appeal, for when the case was put off for judgment, the proceedings had hiccupped along and no judgment was delivered for over eight years.

This delay could never be considered reasonable, and the passage of almost 20 years for a case to be decided from start to finish was exaggerated.

A simple declaration that Bugeja's fundamental human rights had been violated would not be a sufficient remedy, said the court.

It was not opportune to annul the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, for this judgment was legitimate.

The most appropriate remedy, said the court, was that of declaring that Bugeja ought not to serve any further period of his prison sentence.