PM loses constitutional appeal in Mdina stabbing case

The Constitutional Court yesterday dismissed an appeal filed by the Prime Minister from a decree handed down by the First Hall of the Civil Court in constitutional proceedings filed by Carmel Attard against the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner.

Attard had alleged that his fundamental human right to a fair hearing and to freedom from discrimination had been violated by proceedings against him in the Criminal Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal.

He had been jailed after pleading guilty in complicity in the attempted murder of the former Prime Minister's personal assistant, Richard Cachia Caruana, in Mdina. His prison sentence had been confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In the course of the constitutional proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court, Attard had requested authorisation to produce Ian Farrugia as a witness. Attard claimed that he required Farrugia to testify about the criminal proceedings in which they had been co-accused, about the manner in which the criminal action against them had been separated, and about the state of mind of both Attard and Farrugia during the course of the criminal proceedings.

Respondents had objected to the production of Farrugia as a witness on the grounds that his testimony was irrelevant to the case.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had, by a decree issued on January 27, upheld Attard's claim and authorised him to produce Farrugia as a witness.

The Prime Minister appealed from this decree to the Constitutional Court composed of Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri, Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti and Mr Justice Anton Depasquale.

In yesterday's judgment the Constitutional Court declared that the parties to this suit had to bear in mind that this was not a further Court of Appeal that was going to revise the conclusions reached by two courts of criminal jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court was bound to investigate and eventually decide whether there had existed some situation, in the course of the criminal proceedings, that substantiated Attard's allegation that he had not had a fair trial. The constitutional proceedings were limited to the examination of whether Attard's criminal proceedings had been in conformity with both the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights.

Attard, the court noted, was not to be impeded from producing his evidence that might substantiate his allegations, provided that such evidence was limited to the constitutional nature of the proceedings. The court was in duty bound to prohibit Attard from producing evidence that was not relevant to the constitutional matter at stake.

The Constitutional Court therefore found no reason to overturn the decree of the first court and dismissed the Prime Minister's appeal.

The case was remitted to the first court for continuation.