A suspect drug trafficker undergoing criminal proceedings has successfully challenged a €25,000 bail deposit that was way beyond his financial means, effectively denying him his personal freedom. 

Gaetano Campailla, a 54-year-old Sicilian, was arrested in November 2018 when his Ford Kuga was singled out by Sparky, a Customs’ sniffer dog, just after reaching Malta on board the Catamaran from Pozzallo.

Although an initial inspection had yielded no drugs, the dog’s insistence had led to a more detailed search at the police headquarters.

It was there that anti-drug officers had unearthed some 10 kilos of cannabis tucked away in hidden compartments within the vehicle’s doors, with an estimated street value of €20,000.

The Italian driver was arrested and charged with possession and importation of cannabis grass, pleading not guilty upon his arraignment.

As proceedings continued, Campailla was granted bail against a deposit of €25,000 and a further €25,000 by way of a personal guarantee. 

However, the man could not fork out the sum necessary to regain his freedom from preventive arrest, arguing that he only afforded €5,000, which would be paid by his mother who got by on a pension. So he requested the bail deposit amount to be lowered.

The Attorney General objected and the Magistrates’ Court turned down the request in view of the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding. 

Two further attempts to vary bail conditions by lowering the €25,000 deposit likewise failed, leaving the accused’s lawyers with no option but to request a constitutional reference, claiming that the situation amounted to a breach of the accused’s rights.

The First Hall, Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, made reference to the “milestone decision” by the European Court of Human Rights in Neumeister vs Austria stating that the bail guarantee must “be assessed principally by reference to [the accused], his assets and his relationship with the persons who are to provide the security”.

In the case of Campailla, the “onerous” conditions imposed by the Magistrates’ Court effectively meant that it was impossible for the accused to meet the fixed sum. 

The court had failed to take note of the accused’s means, as detailed in the recovery asset report, observed Madam Justice Miriam Hayman, presiding over the constitutional proceedings. 

The AG had objected even when the accused had specified the sum of €5,000 which his mother was willing to pay, arguing that the source of those funds was not proved and that the accused’s mother had not been cross-examined to make sure that she fully grasped the implications of her obligations as guarantor.

In line with EU case-law, Malta’s courts had to consider the accused’s means when fixing the bail bond so as to ensure that it was effective and appropriate, Madam Justice Hayman said, adding that it was useless for a court to grant bail but set a deposit that was way out of reach.

That effectively produced an identical effect to a denial of bail, the court went on.

On the other hand, the accused was to give a “clear picture” of his financial means, something which “for some unknown reason” Campailla had not done fully, the court observed.

However, having weighed all considerations, the court concluded that the €25,000 bail deposit was too “onerous” and effectively amounted to a breach of the applicant’s right to protection from arbitrary arrest or detention.

Following that pronouncement, the man’s lawyers promptly filed another application for the deposit to be lowered accordingly.
Yet, the Attorney General again objected, insisting that the deposit should not be reduced below €10,000.

Having seen the submissions by both parties, the court, presided over by magistrate Natasha Galea Sciberras, varied bail conditions by lowering the deposit to €7,500 while doubling the personal guarantee to €50,000.

Meanwhile, Campailla’s lawyers told Times of Malta that their client remained under preventive custody since he could only afford to deposit €5,000 and was currently considering further possible legal action. 

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi, Alfred Abela and Rene Darmanin are assisting the accused.