The proposed changes to the Criminal Code limit a person’s right to freedom, said Labour MP Justyne Caruana yesterday in parliament.

Parliament was discussing the second reading of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.

Certain amendments will cause problems in the legal system and hinder the work of lawyers, she pointed out.

The amendment to racial and hate crime is needed to counteract the rising wave of intolerance in Malta. However, Mrs Caruana said political difference should be included to protect people who suffer because they have different political ideas.

She added that videoconferencing is a positive step to protect minors but all the law courts need to be fully equipped with video conferencing.

“It is ridiculous that the magistrate has the power to sentence people to 10 years in jail but has to ask for permission from the Chief Justice before opening an inquiry requested by a private citizen,” she said.

The court refuses bail only in exceptional circumstances. However, the proposed amendments will refuse bail for three months to a repeated offender of serious crimes within a time span of 10 years.

Mrs Caruana said she understood that this measure was being proposed to prevent habitual offenders. “However, this amendment shows the lack of faith in the magistrate’s court and each case should be considered on its own merit.”

Mrs Caruana pointed out that the introduction of drug “sharing” will help reduce the number of youths charged with trafficking. She called for more severe measures against drug traffickers.

Nationalist MP Mario de Marco said it is positive that the problem of serious crimes and racial and hate crimes are tackled in the amendments.

However, he added that hostility in racial crimes should also be considered after the crime is committed. Unlike the UK legal system, the Maltese legislation does not refer to hostility after the crime takes place.

Dr de Marco asked for leeway especially in video-conferencing. “It is impossible to complete the interrogation and the cross-interrogation of a minor for a number of factors. I think the principle behind this proposal is good, but it should not be so categorical and could be completed in more than one session.”

However he expressed his doubts about the proposal to leave the authorisation of an inquiry proposed by a civil party to the discretion of the Chief Justice.

“If it is refused, will the person be able to appeal?” he queried.

This procedure will create unnecessary complications and Dr de Marco suggested that the Chief Justice allocates the inquiry to a magistrate without the need for his authorisation.

Dr de Marco mentioned the proposal where a witness only needs to testify once. “If the accused feels the need for a cross-interrogation of a particular witness, then he should have that right.”

“It is understandable that the public might feel that bail is granted too easily to repeated offenders,” said Dr de Marco. “However, it is important to keep in mind that our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.”

Dr de Marco pointed out that there are many cases where bail is not granted to repeated offenders. However, not allowing the magistrate’s court to grant bail for the first three months to repeated offenders might go against certain decisions taken by the European Court of Justice.

He pointed out that under the English system, it is at the discretion of the judge to warn a jury that the testimony of an accomplice might be risky.

However, it should not be left at the discretion of the court, but should be the court’s duty to warn the jury that it is dangerous to find someone guilty on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Labour spokesperson on Justice Anglu Farrugia said certain amendments go against the constitutional rights and the Charter of Human Rights.

He queried why the courts should decide when bail is granted and on the corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony.

The government should remove these amendments in the committee stage, he added.

He queried if there was miscarriage of justice in the past with the corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony.

When the main witness against the guilty party is an accomplice, it is at the court’s discretion to inform the jury. The jury will have to decide if the witness is telling the truth.

If the amendment passes, Malta’s legal system will undergo a system of legal frame-ups and was uncalled for, he said.

Dr Farrugia pointed out that the proposed amendment which needs the authorisation of the Chief Justice to open a magisterial inquiry is ridiculing the Maltese legal system.

If a person is accused for the second time within a period of 10 years, he is still presumed innocent. However, with this proposed amendments, the right to bail is refused for three months and breached the accused’s rights.