George and Alfred Degiorgio, who are awaiting trial for the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, have claimed in court that every time they are denied bail on the grounds of public disorder, the courts are effectively sending out a message that the two should not get out of jail.

The two brothers, who have been under arrest since December 2017, made the claim in a new human rights case filed on Tuesday before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

They also argued that their rights were being breached by the preventive arrest itself, which was “too long and unreasonable.”

Preventive arrest has been 'too long and unreasonable'

Although they were still presumed innocent, such prolonged preventive custody meant that they were effectively already serving time behind bars, with no prospect of ever being granted bail, they said. 

They pointed out that several requests for bail had been denied even though they had declared that they were willing to abide by "every restriction imaginable.”

The Attorney General had produced no proof to objectively justify such a prolonged period of preventive arrest, they said.  

Moreover, whenever the courts stated that the Degiorgios were not to be granted bail because of the risk of public disorder, the message sent out to the public at large was that the accused should not be let out of jail.

When facing possible life terms, such pronouncements by the courts allowed the accused no hope of a fair hearing. How could jurors at the trial, representing the public, ever deliver a not guilty verdict, the Degiorgios asked.

Inhuman and degrading punishment

Furthermore, such a long period of preventive custody amounted to inhuman and degrading punishment or treatment.

The courts, they said, had not struck a balance between the presumption of innocence, the right to freedom of the accused and the interests of society at large.

When the Court of Criminal Appeal stated that the maximum 30-month term of preventive arrest was suspended until the appeal against a decision on preliminary pleas to the trial, was decided, that interpretation also breached their rights, the Degiorgios argued.

Such an interpretation effectively prolonged the 30-month limit by an additional 19 months.

Unconstitutional law

The law itself was unconstitutional because it placed the accused in a position of having to choose between enforcing their rights, such as by summoning witnesses at the compilation of evidence stage, or foregoing that right so as not to suspend the running of the 30-month term of arrest.

The Degiorgios called upon the court to declare that their rights were breached, to afford them adequate remedies, including bail, and to award them due compensation.

Lawyer William Cuschieri signed the application.

 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.