Top court calls for flexibility in freezing order decisions
Criminal courts must prioritise justice over rigid timelines when handling freezing orders, the Constitutional Court rules, highlighting the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights
In a landmark judgment, the court dismissed an appeal by Keith Schembri, Konrad Mizzi, and others while urging legislative changes to allow greater flexibility in resolving complex cases involving freezing orders.
The Constitutional Court delivered a significant ruling today, emphasising that criminal courts should take the time necessary to ensure justice when deciding on freezing orders. This came after a judge at a Criminal Court last June upheld a request by Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi for a constitutional review of the seven-day time-limit imposed on defendants to contest a freezing order. Schembri and Mizzi had challenged the seven-working-day limit imposed by law for contesting freezing orders, arguing that it placed them at a disadvantage.
While prosecutors have ample time to prepare such requests, defendants face strict deadlines to file objections. This, they claimed, created an imbalance between the prosecution and the defence, especially in complex money laundering cases involving significant assets.
The pair face corruption and money laundering charges linked to the Vitals case. The Attorney General had objected to their request.
The appellants argued that the Proceeds of Crime Act violated their right to a fair hearing and the peaceful enjoyment of property. They called for more flexibility, especially in cases where millions of euros were at stake and intricate legal arguments needed to be addressed.
Earlier this year, the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction dismissed their claims, stating that freezing orders fall under the discretion of the Criminal Court.
The Constitutional Court upheld this decision on Monday, ruling that Schembri and Mizzi’s case did not demonstrate a breach of their rights. They had managed to file their objections within the seven-day limit, undermining their claim of insufficient time. However, the court acknowledged that the rigid application of time limits could hinder justice in more complex cases.
Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul urged lawmakers to reconsider the seven-day limit and allow criminal courts the discretion to extend deadlines when necessary.
The judges pointed out that while strict timeframes promote efficiency and predictability, they fail to account for the varying complexity of cases.
They stressed that each case must be assessed on its merits, with judges retaining the flexibility to take additional time when required, provided they clearly document their reasons.
Related
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
