A judge has declared that a decision taken by the President of Malta was not subject to “any type of scrutiny” before the courts, throwing out a claim by Vince Muscat who was refused a presidential pardon.
The self-confessed hitman, currently serving a 15-year jail term over his involvement in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, had filed an action for judicial review of the cabinet’s decision advising the President against the granting of a pardon in his favour.
The applicant had been granted a pardon over his role in the drive-by shooting of Carmel Chircop, a lawyer who was fatally wounded in October 2015 inside a Birkirkara garage complex while on his way to work.
But Muscat had also requested a pardon in respect of other crimes and that request was turned down.
He insisted on proceeding with his case for judicial review which he had originally filed in 2020 against the prime minister, the police commissioner, the attorney general, the state advocate and the justice minister.
When delivering judgment on Tuesday, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale, observed that no matter what the gravity of the crime, no person had a “sacrosanct right to expect to be granted a presidential pardon”, as Muscat and his former lawyer in this case did.
This formed part of “speculation, aided by the media, that is always thirsty for a story and publicity,” intended solely by Muscat in a bid to escape responsibility for his involvement in crime.
In a country like Malta, where the rule of law is applied, one would expect every person involved in crime to ultimately answer for his criminal behaviour when found guilty.
Should that person choose to assist the prosecution in tracking down other suspects, as always free to do, that assistance would be reflected in the judgment ultimately delivered against that person, said the judge.
In this case, there was nothing stopping Muscat from supplying the police with information about other crimes, so that justice may finally prevail.
“There is no need for a presidential pardon for the applicant to testify - if he is truly willing to cooperate and help.”
Once Muscat’s claims were directed against the President’s non-decision on the pardon, he had no cause to rope in other parties in these proceedings.
The only reason why Muscat did so was to “drum up more fuss and draw attention to his expectations” so as to ensure that his claim was given more importance by the media, channelling public pressure to his advantage.
The court upheld the respondents’ plea and declared that all of them, except for the state advocate, were non-suited.
As for the President’s decision not to grant the pardon upon the advice of cabinet, the court declared that no decision by the President was subject to review before the courts, in terms of the Constitution.
The law spoke clearly and allowed for no other interpretation except that which had applied down through the generations and which was also applicable in this case, said Mr Justice Depasquale, rejecting Muscat’s claims with costs.