A notary repeatedly summoned to serve as a juror was found to have been discriminated against in violation of his human rights.

In 2001, Notary Herbert Cassar filed his constitutional application in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Registrar of Courts, the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.

Dr Cassar told the court that for many years he had been listed as a juror before the Criminal Courts. He had been summoned to carry out jury service and had been fined by the Criminal Court when he had failed to appear before it. When he did not pay the fine he had been sentenced to detention without the opportunity to defend himself.

According to Dr Cassar, the manner in which the lists of potential jurors were compiled was discriminatory. The lists, he argued, were biased towards persons practicing a profession or those who had a high level of education. They also tended to include far more males than females.

Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef said in his judgment that Dr Cassar had graduated as a notary in 1976 and that he had been included as a potential juror in 1979.

He had been selected for jury service in 1981 and his name had continued to be entered in the jury lists until 2001.

However, his complaints had to be examined in the context of the time prior to his constitutional application, as extensive changes had been implemented to the law governing jury service since then.

The court added that the parties to this suit had wished to await the outcome of a very similar case filed by Maurice Zarb Adami against Malta before the European Court of Human Rights.

When this case was decided, the European Court had found that Mr Zarb Adami’s rights had been violated because the manner in which the jury lists was compiled meant that many more men than women were included.

Mr Justice Micallef, therefore, found in favour of Dr Cassar.

The court dismissed Dr Cassar’s claim that his inclusion in the lists of jurors constituted a violation of his right to freedom from forced labour. However, it ruled that Dr Cassar had been discriminated against.

The court also declined to cancel the fines that Dr Cassar had incurred when he had failed to serve as a juror. Such fines had been imposed legally by the Criminal Court.

The court also found that the Attorney General ought not to have been called into the suit.