A breach of rights claim by Liam Debono, blocking his trial over the hit-and-run incident that severely injured traffic policeman Simon Schembri, was definitively thrown out on Monday morning. 

Debono is awaiting trial over the near-fatal incident which took place in May 2018 when the then-17-year-old was driving a third party’s silver Mercedes without a licence or a seat belt when he mowed down the officer.

Schembri was dragged several metres along the tarmac surface of the Luqa road where the incident took place, suffering extensive injuries to his limbs, upper body and lungs. 

One of his arms had to be amputated. The injuries resulted in some 60 per cent permanent debility. Schembri has since retired.

The underage driver was arrested after a police car chase.

He was subsequently arraigned, pleading not guilty to grievously injuring the victim and a raft of other charges stemming from that incident. 

The youth was granted bail during those criminal proceedings, months into the compilation of evidence. 

But in May 2019 he landed in fresh trouble when he was spotted by an off-duty policeman driving a beige Fiat Uno in Luqa. His “slouching” position behind the wheel triggered the officer’s suspicion. 

A month later, Debono was found guilty of that separate incident whereby he had breached a court-imposed driving ban, bail conditions and previous court orders.

He was condemned by a Magistrates’ Court to a five-year effective jail term, a 10-year driving ban and forfeiture of some €60,000 in bail money.

Debono did not appeal that conviction. 

But two years later, in April 2021, he filed constitutional proceedings claiming that his fundamental rights were breached. 

His claims were twofold.

Assisted by a legal aid lawyer, Debono argued that since his personal lawyer had refused to assist him in the separate proceedings concerning the second incident and refused to renounce his brief, he was deprived of his right to appeal. 

Other lawyers would not take up the brief unless his previous lawyer granted the client release. 

Debono also argued that he was targeted by negative publicity which would likely prejudice his position at the trial over the 2018 incident and that also breached his fundamental rights. 

Case thrown out

His case was thrown out by the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction last year because the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies. 

Debono appealed that decision and the Constitutional Court delivered judgment on Monday. 

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, together with Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, observed that with respect to Debono’s first claim, all he had produced was his own “brief and bare” testimony.

Debono had insisted that he could not appeal the five-year conviction because his personal lawyer refused to grant his release. 

But when asked if he had tried to engage a lawyer, Debono replied, “No, no. I didn’t [have one]”.

He said his own mother had ended up in police custody two days after the Magistrate’s judgment and he thus had no help. 

However, the court observed that Debono produced no other independent evidence to corroborate his version.

Nor had he sought assistance from the Legal Aid agency during the 15-working day timeframe for the appeal. 

He had, in fact, been assisted by a legal aid lawyer when the judgment was delivered in 2019 and he had immediately given notice of appeal.

Although the state-funded lawyer was appointed to assist him before the magistrate but not at the appeal stage, there was no evidence that the legal aid agency had refused or failed to extend that assistance to the filing of an appeal. 

The Constitutional Court also questioned why Debono waited two years after that conviction before filing his breach of rights case.

As for the alleged negative coverage by the media, the court observed the case concerning the hit-and-run incident “shocked the country, [and] so one would expect extensive coverage by the media”.

However, the applicant failed to prove that he was targeted by a “harsh media campaign” that could prejudice potential jurors and result in a lack of fair trial. 

Moreover, there was nothing stopping Debono from opting to have his case decided by a judge without a jury if he feared that jurors might be impartial. 

He could also ask his lawyer to request the judge to address jurors, directing them to base their considerations only on evidence produced in court. 

That was something the judge could do even without being asked.

And in case of a guilty verdict, the accused would have the right to appeal to a superior court presided by three judges. 

When all was considered the court turned down Debono’s appeal. 

Last year, pending the outcome of these constitutional proceedings and with his criminal trial put off sine die (indefinitely), Debono was granted bail after a psychologist told the Criminal Court that she had witnessed ‘gradual improvement’ in the accused’s behaviour.