The Constitutional Court has turned down an appeal by murder suspect Adrian Agius who was claiming that his rights were breached through the repeated denial of bail, primarily on the ground of public disorder.

Agius and his brother Robert, known as Tal-Maksar, along with Jamie Vella and George Degiorgio are awaiting trial for their alleged role in commissioning the murder of lawyer Carmel Chircop who was gunned down inside a garage complex at Birkirkara early on October 8, 2015.

Adrian Agius.

He and his co-accused are also facing charges linking them to the 2017 car bomb explosion that killed Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Since his arrest in February 2021, Agius was repeatedly denied bail.

Agius’s lawyers had argued that the courts were wrong to base their decision on the basis that granting him bail would spark public disorder. They argued that this notion does not form part of domestic law. The Criminal Code provisions on bail do not cite public disorder as a reason for denying the accused release from preventive arrest.

That argument had been rejected by the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction when delivering a judgment in May.

Agius subsequently appealed that decision.

When delivering judgment on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court confirmed the decision of the first court, observing that all the court decrees on Agius’ requests for bail had been well-motivated and detailed.

Those decisions always took into consideration the way proceedings against Agius were constantly evolving, and also relative jurisprudence on the matter.

The State Advocate, as one of the respondents in this breach of rights case, had rightly pointed out that the appellant was “minimising the extent and gravity of the offences with which he is being charged,” the court said. 

In fact, Agius made reference only to his alleged involvement in the Chircop murder, “seemingly forgetting” that he is also facing charges for allegedly promoting, setting up, organizing and financing a criminal organization, as well as playing an active role therein.

He is also being charged with recidivism, pointed out the Court.

Moreover, it was wrong to compare his case to that of another person who was accused of murder but who had been granted bail.

“First of all, comparisons are odious,” remarked the court.

Agius’s case involved a premeditated murder that was allegedly committed against a victim who was unarmed and who was hit by various shots fired from a weapon that had been selected specifically so as not to leave any cartridges at the crime scene. That would eliminate all traces leading to the perpetrator of the murder.

The appellant was also facing accusations over “very serious offences” related to organized crime.

As for the argument concerning the notion of public disorder, as the first court had observed, bail decisions both by the Magistrates’ Court and the Criminal Court were not actually grounded on that notion but rather on the gravity of the alleged crimes, the court went on.

Although public disorder was mentioned, it was clear that court decisions on bail had not been based on that notion and therefore, the judgment delivered by the first court was correct and was to be confirmed.

The appeal was presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, and Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul.