A man, convicted of living off the earnings of prostitution, is challenging the constitutional validity of the law which denies him the right to reacquire his taxi driver's licence.
Carmel Schembri had landed a suspended sentence and a fine in 2018 after admitting to taking commissions from a Chinese massage parlour business that was run as a brothel.
That conviction meant that Transport Malta decided to withdraw his taxi driver tag since he no longer satisfied the legal requirement of being a person of “good reputation and conduct.”
Schembri contested that decision but in 2021 the Authority informed him that his application was refused.
The applicant took his grievance before the Administrative Review Tribunal, arguing that the refusal was “unfair, unjust, unreasonable based on irrelevant considerations and disproportionate.”
But when delivering judgment in April, Magistrate Charmaine Galea declared that the Tribunal “lacked the competence to assess whether the law was just or not.”
“The law was to be applied as it was and no matter how pitiful the situations faced by the aggrieved parties, [the Tribunal] could not depart from the wording of the law.”
In light of such pronouncement, Schembri’s lawyers have now taken the matter before the constitutional courts, challenging the relative regulations under Subsidiary Legislation 499.68 which they claim are breaching the applicant’s fundamental rights.
Those regulations laid down that no driver’s tag could be issued to applicants convicted of specific crimes, including those linked to prostitution.
Schembri did not in any way mean to justify his criminal wrongdoing and fully grasped the concept behind such statements as ‘every action has a reaction’ and that ‘lawbreakers must pay the price.’
In fact, he had immediately admitted to his criminal wrongdoing.
But that did not mean that once he served punishment and reformed himself he should not be allowed to go back to his job as a taxi driver, argued the lawyers.
The relative regulations breached Schembri’s right to respect for private life, robbing him of the job he loved and with had nothing to do with the offences of which he had been convicted.
Such punishment was “perpetual revenge,” argued Schembri’s lawyers.
Moreover, by specifying certain offences and not others, the law was discriminatory, giving rise to a situation where, for instance, a person who attacked someone and caused grievous injuries, would still be eligible to obtain a driver’s licence.
But in respect of the applicant, “the candle of hope has been completely snuffed out.”
These regulations also turned the clock back on laws promoting reformative justice and rehabilitation of the accused.
They also contrasted sharply with the Conduct Certificates Ordinance which allowed convicted persons a chance to find their way back into society and work once time has lapsed.
“One cannot imagine a greater anomaly or injustice than this,” concluded Schembri’s lawyers, thus requesting the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to declare the breach of rights, to order the State Advocate as respondent to pay adequate compensation and to set out any other measures accordingly.
Lawyers Rene’ Darmanin and Jurgen Micallef signed the application.