A man who was repeatedly denied bail while awaiting trial for a double murder over two years ago has claimed the state has breached his rights by failing to introduce electronic tagging as an alternative to detention.

After spending two and a half years in preventive custody and having several bail requests turned down, Albanian national Daniel Muka has filed a constitutional case against the legal system that does not provide for remote monitoring of the accused.

Muka is charged with the murder of Christian Pandolfino and Ivor Maciejowski, who were shot dead inside their Sliema home on August 18, 2020.

Two other men, Jesper Kristiansen and Viktor Dragomanski, are also awaiting trial for the crime, which investigators believe resulted from a botched burglary.

When Muka was arrested in connection with the murders of a Sliema men, he was already a suspect in an audacious jewellery heist and the attempted murder of two policemen and was out on bail on that case

In a constitutional application filed last week against the State Advocate and the Attorney Gene­ral, Muka’s lawyers argued it is the accused and no one else who is suffering on account of the Maltese state’s failures. Unlike other European countries, it has still not introduced electronic tagging as a tool for the judiciary.

Electronic tagging has long been on the horizon, also featuring in parliamentary discussions.

In the application, reference was made to one particular debate in June 12, 2012, in which then PN MP Franco Debono had flagged the need to introduce such a mechanism within the scenario of bail and called upon the legislator to intervene.

Unlike other European countries, Malta has still not introduced electronic tagging as a tool for the judiciary

Electronic tagging has been utilised by European judicial authorities since the 1990s and has greatly developed since then in line with advances in technology as well as in respect of the accused’s rights and those of society in general, Muka’s lawyers argue.

In November 2000, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers recommended “restriction of the freedom of movement by means of, for example, curfew orders or electronic monitoring imposed with observance… of European rules”.

This mechanism has “predo­mi­nantly been used to enforce curfews and home detention but newer technologies are emerging (e.g. GPS) which can monitor the behaviour and movement of suspects and offenders as well as help create and monitor exclusion zones,” the European Committee on Crime Problems observed in 2013.

Yet, in spite of its multiple benefits, electronic tagging had still not been introduced by the Maltese legislator.

Citing a number of decrees, the lawyers held that the fundamental rights of the accused were being violated through such failure by the state.

In separate proceedings, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera had decreed that such remote monitoring served a twofold purpose: society would be better protected through constant monitoring of alleged criminals while allowing the accused to qualify for bail under less onerous conditions.

In proceedings against Jordan Azzopardi, Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja also decreed that such a system was “more serious, effective and efficacious than the current system whereby the accused must sign at a police station”.

Electronic monitoring would also serve as a deterrent, they held.

Lawyers Alfred Abela and Renè Darmanin 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.