A court has ordered the immediate release of a Croatian tourist who was remanded in custody after making a sarcastic remark about a bomb in his hand luggage at Malta International Airport, ruling that his continued detention was illegal.

In a decision delivered on Friday, Magistrate Marse-Ann Farrugia upheld a habeas corpus application filed on behalf of 61-year-old Blazenko Djuran, finding that a misunderstanding over the English word "charges" had resulted in his guilty plea being incorrectly recorded as not guilty.

Djuran had been remanded in custody on 23 October after a Magistrate refused to accept his admission of guilt, expressing concerns that he did not understand the charges against him or the consequences of pleading guilty.

However, after hearing testimony from the lawyer and interpreter who assisted Djuran during his arraignment, Magistrate Farrugia concluded that the accused had understood the substance of the charges but had been confused by the English terminology used in court.

The court found that although the original magistrate had acted out of caution to safeguard the accused's right to a fair defence, the decision to reject his guilty plea had been disproportionate in the circumstances.

It consequently declared his continued detention unlawful under Article 412B of the Criminal Code and ordered his immediate release.

Confusion over the word 'charges'

During Friday's hearing, lawyer Nadya Fiott, who had represented Djuran as legal aid counsel during his arraignment, confirmed that he had intended to plead guilty from the outset.

Fiott testified that she had informed the court of his intention to admit the charges, but that difficulties arose when the magistrate questioned him about whether he understood the implications of his plea.

When asked whether he understood what pleading guilty to the charges entailed, Djuran replied that he did not know what the word "charges" meant.

According to Fiott, his response referred specifically to his unfamiliarity with the English term rather than a lack of understanding of the accusations or his intention to admit guilt.

Despite his attempts to clarify his position, the magistrate declined to accept the guilty plea and recorded a plea of not guilty instead.

Djuran was subsequently remanded in custody. No bail request was made because he was a tourist with no fixed address or established ties to Malta.

Interpreter Imelda Fede, who had assisted during the original proceedings, corroborated Fiott's account.

She explained that before the arraignment, the defence had held discussions with the prosecution concerning the possibility of a conditional discharge.

However, confusion arose when the magistrate questioned Djuran about his understanding of the charges.

Fede testified that, after the magistrate indicated she would not accept the guilty plea, Djuran repeatedly sought an explanation of what had happened.

"What charges? What charges? I'm guilty. I'm guilty," he insisted, according to the interpreter.

Fede explained that Djuran's lawyer subsequently showed him the charges and clarified their meaning, but that he continued to insist on admitting guilt.

She maintained that the accused's confusion concerned the meaning of the English word "charges", not the consequences of pleading guilty.

Tourist came to Malta for two-day visit

Lawyer José Herrera, appearing for Djuran, emphasised that his client had travelled to Malta simply to visit the country for two days.

The criminal proceedings arose from an incident at Malta International Airport, where Djuran became involved in a disagreement with Ryanair staff over his hand luggage.

According to the original court proceedings, airline employees had informed him that his bag did not comply with the airline's permitted baggage dimensions.

During the disagreement, Djuran allegedly made a sarcastic remark referring to a bomb inside his luggage.

Herrera argued that the tourist had been prepared to accept responsibility for what amounted to an ill-judged remark, but had been prevented from doing so by the court's refusal to register his guilty plea.

The defence maintained that Djuran should have been allowed to admit the charges and receive a sentence during his original arraignment, rather than remaining in preventive custody.

In the habeas corpus application, filed by lawyers José Herrera, Martina Herrera and Matthew Xuereb, the defence argued that the rejection of his guilty plea had directly resulted in his unlawful detention.

Prosecution contests legality of application

The Attorney General opposed the application, arguing that the defence had failed to identify a specific breach of law capable of rendering Djuran's detention illegal.

The prosecution maintained that habeas corpus proceedings required the court to establish whether a person's continued detention was contrary to law.

It argued that the original magistrate had merely exercised a power available to her under the Criminal Code when she declined to accept the accused's guilty plea.

The fact that the magistrate had refused to register an admission of guilt did not, in itself, make the resulting detention unlawful, the prosecution submitted.

Court finds original record did not reflect what happened

In her judgment, Magistrate Farrugia accepted the testimony of Fiott and Fede, noting that their evidence had not been contradicted.

She found that Djuran had consulted his lawyer in the presence of the interpreter before the arraignment and had decided to admit all the charges brought against him.

The magistrate observed that the misunderstanding arose because English was not the Croatian national's first language.

Although Djuran understood the substance of the accusations, he had not understood the meaning of the word "charges."

Once the term was explained to him, he continued to insist that he was guilty.

The court took issue with the record of the original proceedings, which stated that Djuran had declared himself not guilty after saying he did not know what the charges were.

Magistrate Farrugia found that the accused had never actually made such a declaration.

While acknowledging that the other Magistrate had been motivated by a desire to protect the accused's rights, she ruled that the court should not have recorded a not guilty plea when he had never expressly entered one.

The judgment noted that the Criminal Code empowered a magistrate to proceed with a case as though an accused had pleaded not guilty where there were valid reasons to doubt an admission of guilt.

However, the court found that the record of the original proceedings and the evidence presented did not establish that this power had been exercised.

Instead, the accused had been recorded as pleading not guilty, despite never having made that declaration.

The magistrate said that if the original court had concerns about whether Djuran understood the consequences of admitting guilt, it should have explained the accusations and possible penalties to him in simple language.

It could then have suspended the proceedings to allow him to consult his lawyer again and reconsider his position.

Continued detention deemed disproportionate

Magistrate Farrugia also considered the application in light of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to liberty and security.

Referring to European human rights jurisprudence, the court emphasised that the legality of detention must be assessed not only according to domestic law but also against principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection against arbitrariness.

The magistrate concluded that the original court's approach had deprived Djuran of the opportunity to register his guilty plea and had resulted in his continued detention.

She considered the measure disproportionate, particularly given that the misunderstanding had resulted from a language barrier, the charges carried relatively low maximum prison sentences, and Djuran was a tourist without a fixed address in Malta.

Although the original magistrate had sought to safeguard his right to a fair defence, the consequences of her decision went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances, the court found.

Upholding the habeas corpus application, Magistrate Farrugia declared Djuran's continued detention illegal and ordered that he be released with immediate effect.

The decision concerned the legality of his detention and did not determine his guilt or innocence in the underlying criminal proceedings.

The man was represented by lawyers Jose Herrera, Martina Herrera, and Matthew Xuereb.