A landmark judgment delivered by the First Hall, Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) enshrined that the right to cross-examine witnesses at any stage of criminal proceedings is a fundamental human right.
In this case since the defence was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s principal witness, the Court held that the prosecution could not rely on that witness’s testimony in the trail by jury. This ruling reaffirms that the right to a fair hearing must include the right to cross-examination witnesses, as it is a procedural safeguard which ensures there is no potential of any miscarriage of justice.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant arose due to him frequently requesting assistance from the police. The police assistance was required to keep his cousin away from his daughter. His cousin had pursued a relationship with the applicant’s daughter when she was only 13 years old. When the applicant’s daughter attempted to end the relationship, years later, the cousin refused to accept it. He allegedly resorted to violence, intimidation, and blackmail, including threatening to distribute intimate recordings of her to family members and the Rector of the University of Malta. In addition, he allegedly assaulted and stabbed her, and at one point threatened to throw her off Dingli cliffs.
While the applicant was assisting the police to identify his cousin, he reportedly attempted to kill his cousin. This incident resulted in charges of attempted homicide being filed against him.
In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, his cousin, being the principal prosecution witness, testified before the Magistrate’s Court. However, he refused to answer any questions put to him by the applicant’s defence lawyer during cross-examination. Although the defence could potentially cross-examine him again during the jury trial, the trial was repeatedly delayed, and, in the meantime, the witness died.
The Court held that it is the State’s primary duty to maintain an efficient and effective judicial system that ensures individuals have their cases heard and concluded within a reasonable time. In the present case, the State had evidently failed in this basic duty. Furthermore, the excessive delay directly deprived the applicant of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the prosecution’s principal witness, thereby violating his right to a fair hearing.
The applicant was assisted by Dr Joseph Giglio and Dr Michaela Giglio
