A man who failed to turn up in court when an appeal against his conviction for drug-trafficking was due to be read out, has lost his bid to obtain constitutional redress.

Michael Portelli had landed a 23-month jail term back in July 2017, together with a €2,200 fine, after admitting to drug-related charges at an early stage of the criminal proceedings. 

The accused subsequently filed an appeal claiming that the punishment was excessive.

The Magistrates’ Court ignored the fact that the prosecution had acknowledged that the man had trafficked drugs to sustain his own addiction. The prosecution had also agreed that, given the circumstances, a prison term of 15-months would be adequate punishment, the appellant argued. 

The matter was thrashed out before the Court of Criminal Appeal, when both parties made their submissions and “informally” discussed before the judge the possibility of a reduction of punishment. 

At the end of that hearing in December 2017, the Court had put off the case for judgment, stating the adjournment date as May 28, 2018. 

However, the appellant did not hear the date as it was being read out in court, and his lawyer told him that he would communicate the date at a later stage. 

Portelli called up his lawyer a week later and was told that the final hearing set for judgment was “a long way off.”

The appellant received no further communication on the matter from court. 

He failed to turn up in court on May 28, later arguing that he had not the slightest idea of the date set for his hearing. 

In line with the relative provision of law, the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti, had declared the case as ‘abandoned,’ which meant that the 23-month jail term was final and effective. 

In fact, some weeks later, the appellant, who had meanwhile been out on bail, was taken into police custody to serve his term behind bars.

Upon calling his lawyer he was told that the appeal hearing had been over “three weeks ago.”

The man filed constitutional proceedings claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached because the Magistrates’ Court had ignored the plea-bargaining exercise which had offered him the hope of a 15-month jail term. 

But the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, stressed that it was up to the criminal courts to decide upon the guilt or otherwise of the accused. 

No plea-bargaining could substitute “a definite judgment,” observed Madam Justice Miriam Hayman, presiding over the constitutional proceedings. “It is for the court alone to decide whether plea bargaining is acceptable and whether the admission and punishment agreed between the prosecution and the defence is just and acceptable.”

There was nothing in the records of the case to indicate that any agreement had been reached, in spite of repeated attempts at plea bargaining, the court added. 

As for the accused’s argument that he had missed his appeal hearing through no fault of his, the court observed that five months were “more than ample time” to check out the date.

Not only should he have paid attention when the date was set in open court, but he could have even asked for a clarification there and then, rather than rely on his lawyer to supply the information or wait for some notification from court, the Judge said. 

Since the appellant had been out on bail at the time, there was nothing to stop him from chasing the necessary information, to care for his personal affairs. 

It was his sole interest to do so and now he had only himself to blame for the repercussions that followed upon his “inertia,” declared the court, turning down the man’s claim for the alleged human rights breach.