Man ordered to pay €2,000 in additional costs for delaying trial over 2011 case

An alleged drug trafficker has been ordered to pay €2,000 in costs after the constitutional court declared his appeal “frivolous” and ruled it was aimed at delaying further his trial by jury.

Terence Cini was arraigned in June 2011 and charged with conspiring to traffic ecstasy and possessing 1,006 ecstasy pills. The Attorney General issued the Bill of Indictment against him in May 2014, paving the way for him to stand trial.

The plaintiff did not make any preliminary pleas before the Criminal Court and both the prosecution and defence tried to reach a plea deal.

But in July 2022, after Cini changed lawyers, he asked the Criminal Court for permission to raise a preliminary objection. The court refused.

The following month, he asked the court to suspend proceedings after filing a constitutional case. He claimed his right to a fair trial had been violated. 

He also claimed that the lack of accreditation of the laboratory which examined the drugs was also in breach of his rights. The application was dismissed in December last year, and Cini filed an appeal claiming that he lacked access to a court since his case did not qualify to benefit from the Drugs Court.

The Constitutional Court agreed with the lower court's reasoning, saying it is the legislator who decides the rules on when a court can act as a Drugs Court. While judges have some discretion in deciding whether to convert to a Drugs Court, the law clearly limits this by setting a maximum amount of drugs allowed for the accused to qualify.

It upheld the arguments put forward by the State Advocate and the Attorney General, that Cini had access to a court, since it will be decided by the Criminal Court, which is an independent and impartial court.

“The right to a fair trial does not mean the right to be tried before a court of the plaintiff’s choice,” the Constitutional Court said.

On the issue raised about the laboratory’s accreditation, the Constitutional Court ruled that the admissibility of evidence had to be dealt with before the Criminal Court; however, the plaintiff made no preliminary pleas when he was served with the Bill of Indictment.

In August 2022, the Criminal Court denied him from presenting any preliminary pleas because the deadline had passed. The Constitutional Court observed that Cini had every right to challenge the admissibility of evidence but did not.

“In this case he is trying to do what he should have done in the criminal proceedings, by claiming an alleged breach of a fundamental right,” the court said.

Eleventh hour claims

The Constitutional Court then made an observation that it was seeing many cases such as this one, where a plaintiff files a constitutional case on the eleventh hour prior to standing for a trial by jury, in which they claim a breach of right.

 In such cases, the individual would ask for an adjournment of the criminal proceedings until the constitutional matter is decided, and this is leading to “unnecessary delays” in the criminal process, the Constitutional Court said.

“The fact alone that a plaintiff files a constitutional case does not justify the postponement of a trial by jury until the constitutional case is decided,” the court held.

It added that the Criminal Court should assess each request carefully before acceding to a request to adjourn without an appointed date, adding that this should be the exception and not the rule.

The court ruled that the appeal was frivolous and served to delay the trial by jury. It ordered Cini to pay an additional €2,000. The court ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Criminal Court so that the trial can proceed without any further delays.

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, together with Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, presided over the Constitutional Court.

Lawyer José Herrera appeared for Cini. Lawyer Rachael Aquilina appeared on behalf of the State Advocate’s Office and the Attorney General.