The Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction has turned down an application claiming that a 'controlled delivery' of drugs breached human rights.

Henry Grogan and Luke Muscat are undergoing court procedings, where they are accused of association with third parties for the trafficking of cannabis.

The Defence argued that in a 1998 European Court case, the judge ruled that "use of undercover agents had to be restricted and safeguards put in place even in cases concerning the fight against drug trafficking - public interest could not justify use of evidence obtained as a result of police incitement".

The Maltese court was asked to declare that the 'entrapment' that occurred through a controlled delivery in this case went against their human rights as well as their constitutional rights.

The two claimed that undercover agents had incited their offence by organising the delivery of drugs.

The Attorney General  argued that a controlled delivery does not breach their human rights and explained that only cases where someone is pushed to commit a crime that wasn't going to occur would constitute such a breach.

The police were informed by a third person, Anthony Calleja, that Henry Grogan was ready to pass on a substantial amount of cannabis resin.

Through investigations and observations by the police on Mr Grogan, it resulted that there was reasonable evidence to indicate that the information was correct. "This is why the police requested authority from a Magistrate to set up a controlled delivery. Under police supervision, Anthony Calleja met with Mr Grogan to purchase the drugs. Mr Grogan, accompanied by Luke Muscat went to hand over the drugs and were arrested by the police".

Madame Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima said that no evidence was presented to show that the two men were instigated to commit the crime.

She said that the evidence indicates that the two were planning the trafficking since 2009, and that police received information in 2010.

The Court also noted that it was Anthony Calleja who had approached the police, not the other way around.

The Court ruled that it was the prosecution's main witness, Mr Calleja, who provoked the crime and not the police, and that police involvement came after the drug deal was planned.

As such, the Madame Justice said, the controlled delivery did not amount to entrapment and their human rights were not breached.