The Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction has ruled convicted murderer Andy Calleja must be afforded the possibility of a parole review after serving twenty-five years of his life sentence.

The court held that the statutory exclusion of life prisoners from parole amounts to inhuman treatment under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Calleja, who has been imprisoned since his arrest on 14 November 2001, was convicted in 2004 of voluntary homicide and aggravated theft in connection with the killing of Police Constable Roger Debattista during a robbery at the Bank of Valletta branch at Ta’ Farsina in Qormi.

The sentence of life imprisonment was confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 9 June 2005. Three co-accused, Mario Borg, Mark George Falzon and Ian Galdes, stood trial alongside him.

The Criminal Court had found the murder to be deliberate and motivated by financial gain. It noted that the perpetrator first wounded the police officer before firing a shotgun at close range in a vital area of the body, describing the conduct as “cruel behaviour” leading to the death of an officer performing his duties.

Since his conviction, Calleja has remained at the Corradino Correctional Facility and has also received several additional definite sentences, including terms of six months, ten months, five years and two months, all to be served consecutively after the life term.

Calleja instituted the constitutional case after the authorities refused to consider him eligible to apply for parole, relying on Article 10(3)(g) of the Restorative Justice Act, which excludes life prisoners from eligibility.

He argued that a life sentence without any mechanism for review violates the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.

The State countered that the life term had been lawfully imposed after a fair trial, highlighting the seriousness of the offence, the threat Calleja poses to society and the need to acknowledge the harm to victims, their families and the Police Force.

In its judgment, the court held that Article 3 of the Convention requires every life sentence to be “reducible” in the sense that a review mechanism must exist, irrespective of the gravity of the offence.

The absolute prohibition on parole for life prisoners therefore breached Calleja’s fundamental rights.

However, the court clarified that recognising eligibility to apply for parole does not oblige the Parole Board to grant release.

The court rejected Calleja’s argument that his twenty-five-year period should be calculated from his 2001 arrest. It ruled that the period must commence from the date the life sentence became definitive, 9 June 2005, when the constitutional incompatibility crystallised.

The ruling concludes with an order that Calleja be considered eligible to submit a parole application upon completing twenty-five years from that date.

Any eventual decision, conditions or revocation of parole remains within the Parole Board’s discretion under the Restorative Justice Act.

The court also observed that, alongside creating a review mechanism for life prisoners, the State should intensify rehabilitation programmes and strengthen victim-centred measures to ensure that offenders understand the harm caused and that victims’ needs remain central to the justice process.

Judge Ian Spiteri Bailey presided over the case.

Lawyers Josè Herrera and David Camilleri appeared for Calleja.