Murderer serving life sentence can apply to have jail time reviewed, court rules

A man serving a life sentence for murdering a police officer during a bank robbery in Qormi can apply to have his sentence reviewed, a court ruled Friday.

It determined that excluding prisoners serving life sentences from such reviews breached their rights.

Andy Calleja was jailed for life in 2004 for murdering police constable Roger Debattista, who was carrying out extra guard duties at the Bank of Valletta branch at Qormi.

Calleja, who a court described at the time of his sentencing as "a serious threat to society", shot Debattista twice during the hold-up in November 2001.

He was denied bail and placed in preventive custody until he was jailed for life following a trial by jury.

Calleja filed constitutional proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court, claiming his right to a fair trial and freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment.

The petition was lodged against the prime minister, justice minister, home affairs minister, State Advocate and Corradino Correctional Facility’s director. 

In his application, he referenced previous judgments, such as that of double murderer Brian Vella, whom a court ruled could apply for a revision of punishment after 25 years.

The court ruled that Calleja could not claim a breach of his right to a fair trial, since the proceedings concerned his sentence, not his guilty verdict.

The petition did not fall under fair hearing protections in the Constitution, because those safeguards apply to the process of deciding guilt and punishment, not to the punishment already given, the court ruled.

When deciding whether Calleja’s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment was breached, the court referred to judgments from the European Court of Human Rights and official guidance on the right.

It explained that, in the case of a life sentence, that right meant a sentence must be reducible, meaning there must be an opportunity for review where authorities can assess whether the prisoner has changed and made real progress towards rehabilitation.

If those changes are determined as substantial, the State can decide that keeping the person in prison is no longer justified for legitimate punishment or public safety reasons.

The court also embraced the interpretation that Article 3 of the Convention – the right to freedom from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – encompasses “the right to hope”.

In that, even those who “commit the most abhorrent and egregious of acts and who inflict untold suffering upon others nevertheless retain their fundamental humanity and carry within themselves the capacity to change”.

The Court held that the State needs to ensure that no one’s fundamental human rights are breached, including those who are jailed for life. It also needs to ensure that the rights of those who deserve to benefit under the Restorative Justice Act are safeguarded.

Awareness campaign

The court called for more programmes aimed at helping inmates understand the impact of their actions and how to reform themselves. It also called for a victim-centred approach.

It also called for the removal of the provision under the Restorative Justice Act which bars inmates serving a life imprisonment, adding that the state should remove those provisions breaching a person’s right and embark on a wide-ranging public education campaign.

The court added that in the absence of such a campaign, pain could be caused to victims and their families without understanding prisoner’s rights.

The court disagreed with Calleja that the 25 years began to elapse the minute he was arraigned and denied bail and held that the duration began when he was sentenced.

It ruled that while Calleja’s right to a fair trial had not been breached, his right to freedom from inhuman and degrading punishment was in breach, since he could not apply for parole under the Restorative and Justice Act.

It also declared that the prime minister, justice minister, home affairs minister, and the director of prisons are non-suited parties to the case.

Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey presided over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

Lawyers José Herrera and David Camilleri represented Calleja.

State Advocate Chris Soler, Carina Bugeja Testa and Ariana Falzon appeared for the respondents.