Granting prison leave to a person who confessed to committing one of the most heinous murders in Malta’s criminal history is obnoxious at best.
The prime minister was evidently against the decision allowing George Degiorgio to attend a baptism, as was the home affairs minister, which could imply the police did not like it either. The attorney general too opposed the granting of prison leave to Degiorgio.
It was only a judge and the newly installed prison director who agreed.
The least expected of those occupying high office is to assume responsibility for their action. In this case, the “money talks” comment posted on Facebook by Degiorgio’s son exacerbates things, yet, the director of prison remains silent on the issue as does the office of the chief justice.
As inevitably happens in such sensitive matters, the authorities start pointing fingers at each other. This can only please criminals able to afford lawyers who can find loopholes in the law or systems in place.
Degiorgio is serving time in prison after pleading guilty to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, though he is seeking a retrial. In view of such appeal – and a recent decision by a judge who ordered the release of a building contractor from jail pending a constitutional application – one could argue that, at least technically, Degiorgio is not a convict. He has since been jailed for money laundering but he is also awaiting trial in connection with a 2015 murder in Birkirkara.
The drafting of the relevant provision in the prison regulations clearly indicates that prison leave is a concession, not a right. It engages the discretionary power of the director of prison and the minister responsible for the prisons, who may issue “general directions as may be from time to time”.
This, of course, cannot be taken to mean that the director can do whatever he likes. Apart from complying with the minister’s general directions, any discretionary power must be exercised according to the rules of natural justice and is, therefore, always subject to judicial review in terms of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
Hopefully, the minister’s general directions are in the public domain, if anything so prisoners can know whether they are being followed by the director.
It appears the regulations need attention where they refer to prison leave. They make a distinction between a convicted inmate and those in preventive custody. So hardened criminals and repeat offenders serving time but also in custody awaiting trial have a choice others do not enjoy. That could amount to discrimination but, as in the Degiorgio case, also expose the system to confusion, if not abuse.
Also, as things stand, it is not clear, at least to the man in the street, whether the relevant authorities involved – be that the prison director, the courts, the prison leave advisory board, the attorney general, the police or whoever – must effectively consult each other before deciding.
Who will have the final say in case of disagreement?
There is also the point of whether Degiorgio could apply to attend a baptism since this is not listed in the regulations, which speak of a “birth”. Further, was the nine-week advance notice condition observed?
Ironically, prior to the guilty plea, the Degiorgio brothers were repeatedly denied bail – provisional liberty – on grounds of public disorder. That was when they were still presumed innocent. Now that they have confessed to being murderers, the risk of public disorder no longer seems to be of concern to the judicial authorities.
Evident flaws, as in this case, make a mockery of justice.