A former policeman who was acquitted of theft in court proceedings which dragged on for nearly 24 years has filed a constitutional case, arguing that the excessive delays led to him ending up destitute and his marriage to crumble.

Former police constable Paul Sammut, 58, filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General.

In May 4, 1991, the applicant was first arraigned in court, facing charges related to theft.

In June 1991, the case was heard before the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry and, in July 1992, Mr Sammut agreed to his case being heard by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Judicature.

Sittings kept getting deferred, either because the court had not yet decided on the decree or because the court simply ordered a deferral without giving any reason

On April 1995, the prosecution submitted a request to summon witnesses, even though it had concluded presenting its evidence back in May 1992. The judgment was deferred pending this request.

From that day on, subsequent sittings kept getting deferred, either because the court had not yet decided on the decree or because the court simply ordered a deferral without giving any reason.

Meanwhile, another magistrate took over, leading to all parties to ask to be allowed to make submissions prior to the sentence being handed out. The judgment was finally given on February 29, 2014 – exactly 23 years, nine months and two days after the accused was first arraigned. He was acquitted of all charges.

In an application signed by Michael Sciriha and Evelyn Borg Costanzi, the lawyers argue that such an excessive delay was not justifiable, especially in light of the fact that the victim was innocent.

Mr Sammut suffered a number of consequences – he lost his job and was unable to find employment due to the pending court case. This led to financial difficulties, rendering him unable to provide for his wife and two children. His marriage finally gave way under the strain, and his wife left him.

He is therefore asking the court to declare that his right for a fair trial was breached and is suing for damages.