An appeals court confirmed a sentence handed down by the First Hall of the Civil Hall three and a half years ago stating that the director general of prisons and the Interior Minister were responsible for the death of prisoner Carlos Chetcuti.

But it did not agree with the quantum of the damages awarded.

Chetcuti died in February 1995 as a result of a methadone overdose and following a case for damages presented by his father, he was awarded the sum of €53,497.50  by the first court. The Court of Appeal reduced the compensation to €38,213 because while Mr Justice Philip Sciberras had calculated that Chetcuti would live a further 35 years the Court of Appeal said that it calculated the damages on 25 years because the prisoner’s health was not so good, even due to the fact that he was a drug addict.

Vincent Chetcuti, father of Carlos Chetcuti, claimed that his son had died in mysterious circumstances while imprisoned in the Corradino Correctional Facility. He claimed that his son's death was caused by negligence on the part of the director general and the Interior Minister and he requested the court to order defendants to make good the damages he had sustained.

Vincent Chetcuti died in the course of the court proceedings and his place in the litigation was taken over by another relative, Jane Agius. In October 2010 the First Hall of the Civil Court found in favour of the heirs of Carlos Chetcuti and awarded €53,497.50 in damages.

The Attorney General appealed the finding of responsibility and the damages award. On appeal, acting Chief Justice Tonio Mallia, Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri and Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi heard that Carlos Chetcuti had a drug habit and was receiving methadone treatment at the CCF. The treatment was administered by Susan Galea who was assistant to prisons psychiatrist John Mifsud.

The Court of Appeal heard that Mr Chetcuti died of pulmonary oedema, which was compatible with fatal methadone poisoning. He had been administered a dose of 40cc methadone instead of 20cc, which had been previously administered to him.

The court added that it fully concurred with the findings of the first court to the effect that there was no system for the administration of care to drug dependent inmates within the prisons. The first court had established that the prison system for drug dependent inmates was sporadic and without rigid guidelines.

There were no qualified nurses within the prisons at the time the death occurred, though it seemed as though the prison psychiatrist and his assistant were not aware of this fact. The prison psychiatrist had told the court that his directives were often not observed.

In its judgement, the Court of Appeal said it disagreed with defendants' argument that they were not obliged to provide the same standard of care in CCF as that expected of a psychiatric hospital outside of prison.

Persons who required medical attention had to receive the same medical care no matter where they were. A prison inmate was placed in the custody of the prison authorities who had to look after him with all due diligence.

The court added that it agreed with the first court's conclusion that Carlos Chetcuti had not contributed to his own death. It was true that Carlos Chetcuti had taken illegal drugs while in prison, but it was the prison authorities' responsibility to ensure that such drugs were not allowed in. Furthermore, the death was the result of a methadone overdose. The court of appeal however found that the first court's damages award was excessive and thus lowered the sum awarded.