Vella vs Commissioner of Police & Attorney General — Court Delay Violates Right to Fair Trial

Criminal case stagnant for 7 years due to prosecution delays — Constitutional Court orders conclusion within 3 months and awards €1,000 damages

Qorti Ċivili – Prim'Awla (Sede Kostituzzjonali) · Hon. Justice Miriam Hayman LL.D. · 18 February 2026

Darren James Vella was charged in September 2016 with customs offences under Ch. 382 and Ch. 80 of the Laws of Malta. By the time he filed his constitutional application in 2023 — nearly seven years later — the case was still in the prosecution's evidence stage and completely stagnant. The reason: a co-accused in separate proceedings (Patrick Pace) could not testify until his own case was concluded, and that case was also still pending. The prosecution had repeatedly declared it could not close its evidence without Pace's testimony. Vella argued this violated his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court agreed, ordered the Magistrates Court proceedings concluded within three months, and awarded €1,000 in moral damages against the State.

The Constitutional Court found a clear violation of Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 6 of the ECHR — the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The court meticulously reviewed the history of every sitting: repeated adjournments due to prosecution unavailability, co-accused unavailability, COVID-19 delays, and prosecution inaction. It held that while some delays were partly attributable to the accused (missed sittings), the fundamental cause of stagnation was the prosecution's choice to make its case contingent on the testimony of a co-accused in separate proceedings — a decision entirely within its control. The State cannot shield itself from responsibility by pointing to systemic court resource issues when the delay is driven by prosecutorial strategy. The court ordered: (i) a declaration that the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time was violated; (ii) the criminal proceedings to be concluded within three months; (iii) €1,000 moral damages payable jointly by the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General; (iv) all legal costs against the State.

• Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 6 ECHR guarantee the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time — this applies to criminal proceedings and can be enforced via constitutional application even before the underlying case concludes
• A citizen can bring a constitutional application for court delay while criminal proceedings are still ongoing — they do not need to wait for a final verdict
• The State cannot avoid liability for court delays by blaming systemic resource constraints — where the delay is driven by prosecutorial choices, the State bears responsibility
• A co-accused in separate proceedings cannot be called as a witness until their own case is definitively concluded (Art. 636 Criminal Code) — but the prosecution cannot use this rule indefinitely to stall proceedings
• The Constitutional Court can order the criminal court to conclude proceedings within a specific time limit as a remedy for delay — here three months from the date of judgment
• Moral damages of €1,000 were awarded against the Commissioner of Police and Attorney General jointly for the prolonged violation of the applicant's rights
• Both the COVID-19 pandemic period and periods of genuine unavailability were taken into account, but did not excuse years of stagnation caused by prosecutorial strategy