Thoughts about William

William Agius’ story provoked a myriad of reactions and captivated people’s minds and hearts.

Ido not know William and have never met him, although now that his case is over I really wish to. His story was given prominence by Peppi Azzopardi’s Xarabank who, I must say, must be lauded for standing foursquare behind someone who he believed should be given a voice.

Once I got to know about William’s case I immediately asked for a brief about the facts surrounding his case.

I was told as follows: William was caught red-handed in the middle of a drug deal near the Qormi primary school (on a Saturday) on 26 November 2004 involving a third party (Mr GF). The amount involved was 2,043 ecstasy pills contained in 4 separate plastic bags. It transpired that in the months before the 26th November he procured ecstasy four other times from GF in order to give them to other third parties and collect money to be handed to GF.

At the time the haul was described by the press as one of the biggest ecstasy hauls.

William was subsequently arraigned to Court and by 2010 seven years ago - the Bill of indictment was issued for William to be tried by jury.

However, William between 2010 and 2017 undertook – as was his right – a number of court procedures: first a number of preliminary pleas which were decided on 9 January 2012, secondly an appeal from this judgment which was decided on 16 January, 2013 and thirdly a Constitutional Case which was decided on 14 November, 2016 from which he did not appeal. The trial by jury was subsequently appointed for 11 December, 2017 and a judgment was delivered.

All those procedures were, of course within William’s rights and I pride myself that our justice system provides for all those guarantees which are available to everyone. This being said, I believe that the claim that the Court case took a long 14 years without mentioning the fact that throughout 7 of those years three special court proceedings were undertaken might have sent a distorted message.

William Agius has managed to rehabilitate himself from drug addiction, with the help of various professionals who – day in day out – do sterling work with hundreds of youths every year.

I am grateful to all those people who do so much for people who become imprisoned in drug abuse.

I have spoken a number of times with professionals in the field and with people who come out of drug addiction. They tell me it is a lifechanging experience. Some slip along the way, and then manage to get back on track. It’s part of a whole process. But I have nothing but admiration for people like William who get out of drug abuse and turn over a new leaf.

Back in 2015 we passed a new drug law – called Drug Dependence (Treatment not Imprisonment) Act which changed completely the way we look at drug abuse and its victims. I pride myself that the law was approved unanimously by Parliament.

It drove home a number of innovations.

Firstly, it introduced the principle for the first time that people who are victims of drug abuse and commit crimes in the process, should be given a second chance and help to come out of the drug habit rather than sent to prison. We are bearing the fruits of this wise decisiononly last week a person was spared from being sent to prison for rehabilitating and coming out of drug abuse.

Secondly, we introduced the principle of medical marijuana. Now, we are legislating to make access to medical marijuana less beaurocratic and easier.

Thirdly we decriminalised the crime of simple possession of drugs with a route to help to repeated offenders. I am told that this part of the law was a complete success story. Furthermore, all the funds derived from the fines imposed on people accused of simple possession are handed over to the organisations working to assist drug victims in their rehabilitation.

When we passed the new drugs law back in 2015 we had provided that certain people could not benefit from the provisions of the Act. We had excluded people who sell drugs near schools or in prisons.

We had excluded from the application of this special law people who are tried by jury for drug trafficking given the enormous amounts of drugs which usually are involved in such operations.

William was one of the people who could not benefit from the new drugs law given the huge number of ecstasy pills which were involved. But then again, he rehabilitated and came clean from the habit.

In a separate piece of legislation, we had introduced new guarantees to counter the power of the Attorney General to decide whether a person accused of serious drug offences should be tried in front of the Court of Magistrates or in front of the Criminal Court (trial by jury). The new guarantees included a right to appeal from the AG’s decision and also the right of the Criminal Court to impose the penalties which are applied by the Court of Magistrates.

I believe that the Criminal Court delivered a sensible judgment in William Agius’ case. Usually people with such amounts of pills would get anything between 9 and 12 years imprisonment. In this case the Court delivered a sentence of three years imprisonment which is the most generous judgment I can ever recall given the amount of drugs involved.

Agius’ lawyer, Joe Giglio, went on record saying that this is a historical judgment.

I am grateful that the Courts understand the strong message sent by Parliament in favour of rehabilitation.

I wish William Agius all the very best and hope that in 16 months’ time he is granted parole as would be in his full rights as long as he keeps on the right track.

Things are changing, mentalities are changing and I am happy to see a kinder, more sensible justice system.

Some people would say the Court was too harsh, others would say the Courts were too soft. I believe that the most important thing is that the change we wanted to procure in this difficult field has come.