A suspected drug trafficker has won a constitutional court case in which he requested a statement he had given to police in the absence of a lawyer is not used as evidence in his trial.

Morgan Onuorah was arrested and interrogated in 2010 over his alleged involvement in a drug deal. He had pleaded not guilty to conspiring to traffic drugs, supplying and being in possession of cocaine and money laundering.

The right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation had not yet been introduced back then, and lawyers could only be consulted prior to the interrogation.

The often-contested issue once again came to the fore in a pronouncement by the Constitutional Court, stating that “different governments over the years” should not have delayed updating the system in line with the direction taken by the European courts.

The law was amended in 2016.

The Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, said that different governments should not have delayed updating Malta’s justice system to come into line with European law.

Denying access to a lawyer during the interrogation was viewed by the European Court as a “procedural defect” that could “contaminate the entire criminal proceedings,” the court observed.

Criticising the delay, the court noted that allowing such a police statement to be used as evidence during the trial could give rise to a “clear danger” of having the jurors rely on it as evidence when reaching their verdict.

Filing constitutional proceedings in 2019, Onuorah had challenged the statement he had released under interrogation and claimed that his right to a fair hearing was breached.

His claim was thrown out by the First Hall of the Civil Court last year. The court had agreed with the Attorney General’s argument that there could be no breach of rights if the trial had not yet begun.

It had, however, acknowledged recent pronouncements by the European Court that had urged caution when admitting such statements.

In his appeal before the Constitutional Court, Onuorah argued that the law had not yet changed when he was interrogated, there was no one to point oiut the possible consequences of his statement and the risk of incriminating himself.

The Constitutional Court ruled that, on its own, the absence of a lawyer during the interrogation stage did not amount to a breach of human rights. It added, however, that if the statement was used later in the criminal proceedings, it could amount to a breach of the man’s right to a fair hearing.

The court ordered that a copy of its judgment be inserted into the criminal records and also declared that the accused’s statement cannot be admitted as evidence by the court presiding over the trial.

Onuorah was assisted by lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Amadeus Cachia.