Angelo Zahra was arrested on the 21st July 2001 as he was accused of trafficking cocaine. Proceedings were brought against him and the compilation of evidence before the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry began.
In 2019 Angelo Zahra filed a request to make a reference to the Constitutional Court due to the excessive delay by the prosecution to conclude its evidence. This request was accepted by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature. As a result, Angelo Zahra appeared before the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional) who found in favour of Angelo Zahra in that his right of a fair hearing within a reasonable time found under Article 6(1) of the European Convention and Article 39(1) of the Constitution of Malta had been violated. The First Hall ordered that the proceedings before the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry be continued and urged the Attorney General to conclude its evidence. The criminal proceedings against Angelo Zahra were finalised on the 25th June 2020 and he was acquitted of all accusations.
Angelo Zahra made an application before the Constitutional Court stating that it is hardly necessary to say that 19 years to close the criminal proceedings is an absurd amount of time that deserves much more than censorship. Angelo Zahra pointed out that the reasons for this delay were in no way attributable to him and are mainly the consequence of the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence against him and failure of the prosecution to make a timely decision on how the case ought to be brought forward to overcome the obstacles.
Further distress was caused to him because of all his assets were frozen. Angelo Zahra was a businessman, a director of two companies and traded in the property. Due to the freezing order against him his business collapsed, he was found to be in breach of his obligations towards the bank and this resulted in him losing his property. He was even imprisoned by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judiciary due to his financial situation which led him to be unable to pay his VAT. Thus, Angelo Zahra in his application before the Constitutional Court requested the Constitutional Court to:
- declare that 19 years for a judgment to be delivered went against his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time found under Article 6(1) of the European Convention and Article 39(1) of the Constitution of Malta;
- declare that the fundamental right to a fair hearing had also been violated due to not being granted the right to be questioned in the presence of a lawyer;
- declare that due to this violation of his fundamental human right he has a right to be compensated fairly.
The Attorney General argued firstly that Angelo Zahra had already made a complaint and wasn’t entitled to make another complaint on the same issue. Secondly, that according to the European Court of Human Rights case law for a timely manner to be determined the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties to the case and the conduct of the relevant authority or authorities – in this case the behavior of judicial authority – had to be taken into consideration. Thirdly, the AG also argued that there is no stipulated time limit within which the course of proceedings have to be decided as otherwise the interests of justice would be prejudiced. Fourthly, the AG argued that it had to be proved that the delay was prejudicial and intended to be disadvantageous to the rights of the accused. The AG also held that if the Court does find that the right of fair hearing is to be violated then compensation should only be by means of non-pecuniary damages and not material damages.
The Court dismissed all the arguments brought by the AG and found that the charges against Angelo Zahra by their nature were not complex. Moreover the Court concluded that the Attorney General did not require 19 years to prosecute a case. Instead, the Court held that applicant was subjected to 19 years of limbo, legal uncertainty, and financial and psychological hardship.The Court noted that Angelo Zahra is a man of almost 72 years of age and somehow wants to get on with his life after being forced to change his lifestyle for the last 19 years, the way he does business, his family’s lifestyle, and more. In addition, the Court noted that Angelo Zahra was not convicted of any of the charges against him. Thus, the Court compensated Angelo Zahra €19,000 as non-pecuniary damages.
Dr. Joseph Giglio and Dr. Sarah Mifsud represented applicant in all these proceedings.
