The Labour government will vote in favour of the proposed changes to the Criminal Code during the plenary session but will vote against three particular amendments and ask for a division, said Labour spokesperson Gavin Gulia during parliament yesterday.

The changes proposed are the result of several months of discussion and public consultation following the publication of the White Paper in January.

Justice Minister Tonio Borg explained that at present, testimony given by an accomplice is not admissible unless it is corroborated by an independent witness.

There is now a proposal to remove the need for an independent witness to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony.

However, he pointed out that in the case of a trial by jury, it is at the discretion of the judge to warn the jurors that the accomplice might have reasons for not telling the truth.

“We are respecting human rights while removing all obstacles to use the testimony of an alleged accomplice in a trial,” he said.

Another proposal is not to grant bail to someone who has committed a crime and, within 10 years, is taken to court again to face proceedings for a similar crime.

It will restrict the court’s discretion to grant bail for serious crimes such as rape, murder, and paedophilia.

“The court will not grant the accused bail for the first three months, granting an exception for particular circumstances,” Dr Borg said.

However, the accused can appeal for bail before a judge. Once the three months are up, it is up to the magistrate to grant the accused bail.

Dr Borg explained that this measure has been introduced as many habitual offenders are frequently granted bail after committing serious crimes.

Although a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty, this presumption must not be extended to the extent that the accused is free until judgement.

With the present system, witnesses do not testify only in the magisterial inquiry, but are called again in the compilation of evidence, and if needed in the trial by jury.

This is extremely traumatic for children who, apart from going through the trauma of being a victim, have to testify three times.

With the new proposals, minors under 16 will testify once and this will be recorded through video conferencing. It will be the exception to the rule if they are called to testify a second time.

Another amendment will introduce the concept of drug sharing, explained Dr Borg.

At present, when someone is accused of drug trafficking, there is a minimum prison sentence of six months.

If a person is caught sharing a joint with a friend or a partner, it will fall under “sharing” and not trafficking.

The proposed changes will leave it up to the court’s discretion whether to send a person who shares to prison.

However, a person can only be accused of sharing once and the court will take into consideration the amount and type of drugs used, the criminal record of the person and the number of people with whom it was “shared”.

Another amendment proposed was the possibility of the accused paying a contribution towards or a percentage of the costs incurred by the state in a trial by jury once found guilty.

A compensation scheme for victims who cannot pay court expenses was also proposed. “It will be at the court’s discretion, and might also involve the guilty party paying for the damage caused to the victim’s property, for example,” explained Dr Borg.

Another change proposed by Dr Borg will make it easier for someone to regain possession of a court exhibit if it is no longer required.

At the moment, once an object is used as a court exhibit, the court notifies the defence and prosecution to see if there is any objection to it being returned to the owner. However, the accused often claims that it was not stolen but bought from a third party, so the object is kept for a long period of time.

“With this new amendment, it will be the exception to the rule that the court exhibit is kept for a long period of time,” said Dr Borg. “If anything, the accused should pinpoint the so-called person from whom he bought it, but funnily enough they rarely remember them.”

Victims often suffer the humiliation of waiting outside the law courts while the proceedings take place inside, said Dr Borg. However, the new proposal will allow them to be present throughout the entire proceedings.

In his address, Dr Gulia said that while certain amendments were positive, extreme care must be taken not to reduce the protection of the accused.

“If these (following) three amendments pass, they will be removed in the first six months by a Labour government,” he said.

The first point concerned magisterial inquiries. At present, a magistrate can open an inquiry following information from the police, prosecution or a private party.

However, with the proposed amendment if a private citizen provides information to a magistrate, the magistrate must put the case before the Chief Justice before opening an inquiry.

“It is up to the discretion of the Chief Justice to see if there is the need for a magisterial inquiry,” said Dr Gulia. “The reason behind this move is not clear. Apart from further burdening the Chief Justice, it is as though the government does not have faith in magistrates.”

The second issue with which the opposition did not agree is the lack of bail for three months.

“Not granting bail for three months is an attack on the judicial process and on magistrates,” he said.

Dr Gulia asked why the issue of bail should be the responsibility of the judge and not the magistrate, and what would be gained during those three months.

“Is there is a lack of faith in magistrates?” he asked. “However, no reason was given for this proposal and it will further burden the judges with appeals for bail.”

The Corradino Corrective Facility will be filled with people who will all be granted bail after three months.

Dr Gulia pointed out that the constitutional court can easily overrule this decision. “The first case that will crop up will be taken up to constitutional court and there are precedents that will overrule it. Even it if is not overruled here, it will not be accepted in Strasbourg.”

The third point in question was the issue of the corroboration of an accomplice.

“This is another dangerous move,” said Dr Gulia.

“If other countries want to follow a line which offers reduced protection, then Malta should not follow their example,” he added.

He praised the proposal to increase the degree of seriousness of racial crimes.

He also urged the police to be more transparent about their investigations without comprising their work and appealed the Commissioner to double the police’s efforts and even set up a special unit if needed.