The Prosecution may choose to prosecute an accused, if they breach the bail conditions, according to a ruling delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal presided by Mr Justice Neville Camilleri in the case the Police vs Priviledge Mupimhidzi.
Mupimhidzi was accused of breaching bail conditions, which were imposed last January. The Court was asked to revoke the bail and order the payment mentioned as guarantee.
The Magistrates Court on 27 June 2024 found the appellant, Mupimhidzi, guilty and ordered the confiscation of €400 and ordered the payment of €5,000. The Court rearrested the appellant.
Mupimhidzi appealed the judgement and asked the Court of Appeal to find him not guilty of the offence.
From the evidence produced the appellant was ordered to sign the bail book every day at the police station. The last time he signed the bail book was on 23 February 2024. The police tried to trace the appellant, since he was not living at the address he had given to Court. The appellant held that he suffers from mental health issues.
The Court of Criminal Appeal quoted from a judgement delivered on 25 November 2022 in the Police vs Joseph Tabone, wherein the court held that it should not disturb what the first court had considered in the facts of the case. The Court of Appeal should go through the evidence produced to see whether the considerations of the first court were reasonable and had a legal value.
The Court moved on to look at the merits of the case. The appellant argued that the prosecution should have filed an application in the case, since the request to revoke the bail took place in a separate case from that which granted bail. The First Court did not have jurisdiction to revoke the bail, but should have left it to the court in the other case.
The Attorney General referred to the Police vs Charlot Calleja, which said the opposite. If the request for the revocation of bail is placed in a separate charge sheet, this does not make it null and void. It is the prosecution which decides which procedure to use. Article 579(2) of the Criminal Code provides that the breach of bail conditions is an offence on its own. The Defence argued that the judgement in the Police vs Kevin Gatt decided by the Constitutional Court does mention the breach of bail as a separate offence. This means that the procedure for the breach of bail does not necessarily have to be decided by the magistrate who authorised the bail. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the first court could have reached its decision. Therefore, this ground of appeal was being rejected.
The First Court ordered the confiscation of the deposit and the personal guarantee and awarded a one year prison sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal should not consider this issue since the punishment was within the limits of the law. This was held in The Republic of Malta vs Kandemir Meryem Nilhum et, decided on 25 August 2005 and in the Police vs Daniel Aquilina, decided on 28 September 2017.
The maximum prison sentence is two years imprisonment, and the court awarded half. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that this was justified in the circumstances. The Court was authorised to confiscate the deposit. Article 579(3) of the Criminal Court allows the courts to revoke bail and the accused will be re-arrested.
The Court then moved to reject the appeal and confirmed the first court’s judgement.
Av. Malcolm Mifsud
Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on Malta Today.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
