Last week saw the reemergence of an issue that was brought up some seven years ago and has languished at the back of people’s minds since – that of access to legal advice before and during police interrogation.

The issue is being championed by government backbench MP Franco Debono and opposition spokesman for Justice Jose` Herrera – both lawyers who ply their trade in the Criminal Courts.

The two MPs spoke out after the European Court recently delivered a judgment in which it had found that the state of Turkey had breached the fundamental rights of a certain Salduz, who was denied access to legal advice after his arrest in connection with fraternising with the Kurdish PKK which the state regards as a terrorist organization.

Turkish law, which has since been amended, stipulates that a person tried in the Security Courts did not have a right to legal representation. The court ruled that this was in breach of his fundamental human rights and that everyone should have access to legal advice in a scenario of police interrogation. The court also pointed out that this was especially so, seeing as Salduz was a minor at the time.

So what does this have to do with Malta? Malta passed amendments through parliament in 2002, calling for the introduction of this right, yet seven years later, nothing has been done about it.

The two MPs in question and the government seem to be in disagreement as to the exact judicial findings in the Salduz case. It also seems that the government and the legal profession are not in agreement as to how the system would be implemented. The state, knowing that the Malta police rely heavily on confessions in solving crime, is looking at a system whereby those who are to be interrogated are allowed legal advice prior to the interview. Lawyers, on the other hand want the fully monty and are looking for a system where they will be allowed to sit in on interviews with their client on the US model.

The Police Commissioner has already gone on record and said that the Corps were ready to face the reform, yet whispers from the courtyard at Auberge d’ Aragon say that the Justice and Interior Ministry has other priorities – probably a direct reference to the ongoing battle against illegal immigration. Another interesting point is that the Chamber of Advocates has not yet taken an official stance on the issue. Understandably, the Attorney General’s Office has not said a word either. To put it frankly, the law enforcement agencies (and we are not implying malpractice) know that one of the major tools they have in fighting crime could be taken away from them.

This must be taken into context, and one could point to conspiracy in trafficking drugs as a pertinent example. Often there are cases where physical evidence is scant and only a confession is enough to bring about a successful conviction, yet the police will have to buck their act up and obtain that evidence.

Let us be clear, our police do the best with what they have and they do obviously investigate a lot of tough cases from top to bottom and get the conviction that is deserved. But the fact of the matter remains that it will be tougher for them to get the result they (and of course the state and general public) want.

What is amply clear though is that the government cannot promise to introduce amendments to the law and then simply not enact them.