Six-year delay and blanket asset freeze breached man's rights, court rules

The Constitutional Court on Friday ruled that the fundamental rights of a man facing drugs-related charges were breached after criminal proceedings against him dragged on for years and he was subjected to a sweeping asset-freezing order.

In its ruling, the court blamed the prosecution for the delays and argued the blanket freeze had place an "excessive and unjustified burden" on the applicant.

Criminal proceedings against Michael Hearne began in 2019 but the case remained pending for over six years. During this time, Hearne was placed under a freezing order covering all his assets, restricting his access to his property and limiting him to a statutory allowance for daily living expenses.

In its judgement, the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, presided by Judge Henri Mizzi, examined whether the freezing order, coupled with the lengthy criminal proceedings, complied with the protections afforded by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court found that the freezing order  amounted to “disproportionate interference” with Hearne’s right to the “peaceful enjoyment of his possessions”. It noted that the blanket measure applied “indiscriminately” to all his assets without requiring the prosecution to identify or quantify the alleged proceeds of crime.

It also noted that, at the time Hearne had no effective way to challenge the order’s scope or to seek its limitation.

Although the law provided for certain variations, these were limited in scope and did not allow a proper review of the proportionality of the measure.

Particular weight was given to the prolonged duration of the freezing order, which has remained in force for more than six years and continues to subsist in the absence of any effective review of its necessity or scope, given that the criminal proceedings are still ongoing.

The Court said that this placed an “excessive and unjustified burden” on the applicant, thereby violating his rights under the Constitution and the European Convention.

The Court also found that the case had not been heard within a reasonable time, blaming the delays on “deficiencies in the conduct of the prosecution and management of the proceedings”.

The Court identified a pattern of repeated adjournments, numerous sittings at which no evidence was produced, delays in the completion of expert reports, and the continued request and reliance on testimony from an absconding co-accused.

This showed a “lack of diligence” required to ensure that proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time.

The court pointed out the delays were made worse by the asset freeze which significantly restricted Hearne’s financial independence and left him in prolonged uncertainty.

The court concluded that Hearne’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as well as his property rights, had been violated.

It ordered the criminal proceedings to be conducted in a manner to ensure they are concluded as soon as possible. It also told the prosecution to identify which particular assets or sums should be confiscated and provide a basis for that assessment.

The applicant will have the opportunity to contest such claims by demonstrating the lawful origin of his assets.

The scope of the freezing order will then be limited, as far as possible, to those assets which might need to be confiscated, subject to periodic judicial review.

The Court also awarded the applicant €6,750 in non-pecuniary damages.

Dr Giannella de Marco and Dr Maria Margo Zammit Fiorentino represented Michael Hearne.