One of two teenagers accused of the shooting of two cousins at Mqabba last July has had his €15,000 bail deposit slashed to one-fifth after proving that it was too harsh, in light of personal circumstances. 

Owen Schembri, 18, currently co-accused alongside Leon Debono, 18, of having fatally shot Saviour Gaffarena and seriously wounded his cousin Vince, has been under preventive custody since pleading not guilty at the double arraignment on August 3. 

As proceedings continued before the Magistrates’ Court and after the main witnesses had testified, Schembri was granted bail in December under a number of conditions including a €15,000 deposit and a personal guarantee of €35,000. 

Yet, given his personal circumstances and limited means, the teen could not meet the €15,000 sum that had to be deposited to secure his release from arrest. 

His lawyer, Arthur Azzopardi, thus filed an application before the Criminal Court requesting a variation of that amount. 

The court, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, heard the accused confirm that, prior to his arrest, he was jobless and did not get any social benefits. 

Moreover, since his parents had split up and gone separate ways, he lived with his 80-year-old grandmother who got by on a pension, out of which she afforded him some €50 by way of weekly pocket money. 

The teenager said that he did not own a car or property and had no money in the bank.

Upon the evidence put forward, the court concluded that the €15,000 deposit was certainly beyond the means of the accused and his family, and that such a bail condition was depriving him of his personal liberty. 

While personal freedom was the rule and arrest the exception, bail was intended to safeguard the principle of presumption of innocence while ensuring the proper continuation of the criminal process. 

In a lengthy decree, citing case law and doctrine, Madam Justice Scerri Herrera laid down 10 general principles which were to serve as guidelines for the courts when determining the amount to be imposed by way of deposit for bail. 

The right to bail existed only if a sufficient guarantee was provided to ensure that the accused did not abscond and thus forfeit the monetary deposit. 

However, the raison d’etre of such deposit was not to compensate for the criminal damage but to make sure that the accused turned up for hearings whenever summoned. 

Thus, that deposit was not to be excessive but had to reflect the financial means and personal circumstances of the accused. 

Nor was that sum to be calculated according to the gravity of the offence committed.

If bail conditions were too harsh to be met by the accused, then his continued arrest could be considered unlawful and irregular in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“If it appears that the proceedings cannot be concluded within a reasonable time, then bail should always be granted,” concluded the judge.

In this case, there was no doubt that the €15,000 was too harsh and did not reflect the reality of the accused’s circumstances, said the judge, also pointing out that the amount to be imposed was totally at the court’s discretion. 

The deposit was reduced to €3,000, while all other bail conditions including the €35,000 personal guarantee, remained unvaried.