It took nearly a quarter of a century for a court to acquit a former police officer of stealing toys, prompting a constitutional court to declare a breach of his human rights to be tried within a reasonable time.

The officer, Paul Sammut, died two years ago, before his constitutional case was decided.

The court heard that the stress of such a long case had put a terrible strain on him, his wife and their two children, and his marriage almost hit the rocks due to the financial burden caused by the delays.

Sammut was 30 when he joined the police force in 1988. On June 12, 1991, he was charged, along with two other men, with the theft of more than €2,300 worth of toys.

It was only on February 6, 2015, nearly 24 years later, that the case was decided, and only after the presiding magistrate was substituted. All three men were cleared of the charges.

Sammut died suddenly two years later, a year after he filed his case claiming the time it took for the court to decide breached his rights.

Madam Justice Anna Felice, presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, ruled that the court delays were “unreasonable”.

This was especially so since the case was shelved for at least eight years, during which there were 100 postponements simply for a decree on a technicality that was not even legally complex.

The judge rubbished arguments made by the Attorney General that there were no unreasonable delays because of the complexity of the case.

She pointed out that the prosecution had summoned all its witnesses within the first two court sittings. But after the defence had summonsed all the witnesses it needed, the prosecution in 1995 requested the court to allow it to summon a representative of a company which imports the stolen toys.

Since this is not usually allowed, the court deferred the case for a decree on the matter but this never materialised. It was only after the magistrate was changed that the court issued a decree – in June 2013 – ruling against the prosecution’s request.

Madam Justice Felice noted that the state is responsible for ensuring there are enough resources for the judicial system to function properly.

She quoted a previous court ruling on court delays: “It is the state’s duty to ensure that the judicial [process] can run its course without undue delay.

“The Constitutional Court has previously observed that the Maltese courts are burdened with a heavy case load which often serves as an obstacle to the speedy determination of cases.

“This court agrees with the opinion expressed many times by this court that there exists an inherent deficiency in the justice system because the public authorities are failing their duty [to] ensure that there are enough resources for the court to be able to perform its duties satisfactorily.”

While the delays in this case were unreasonable, she said the court was not convinced that they were the cause of the psychological problems caused to Sammut and his family.

The delays certainly did not help his fragile mental state, the court added, because of the uncertainty over an impending decision that could carry an effective jail term.

The judge granted the man €5,000 in compensation for a breach of his right for a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Lawyer Ruth Ellul appeared for Sammut.