Man eligible for parole requests time in custody to be taken into account

A man sentenced to life in jail over the murder of an elderly couple who recently won the right to apply for parole in a landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court, has asked that his time in custody be taken into account as counting towards his parole.

This was argued by lawyers for Brian Vella, who was found guilty by a jury in 2007 of murdering his elderly neighbours. Vella was condemned to life imprisonment, a punishment confirmed on appeal in 2011.

Vella had gagged and bound 79-year-old Gerald Grima and his 63-year-old wife Josephine in their apartment on 10 February 2000. The elderly couple died of asphyxiation.

Last month, Judge Joseph R. Micallef, presiding over the Constitutional Court ruled that even those found guilty of the most horrific crimes should not be stripped of their dignity and the “right to hope” of one day being released from custody. At the time, all inmates bar those serving a life sentence qualified for parole.

Prisoners serving a life sentence should be able to apply for parole after a minimum of 25 years, ruled the judge. That meant Vella would benefit from the ruling in 2036.

In an appeal application filed earlier this week, Vella’s lawyers argued that the entire period of detention should be taken into consideration to qualify for parole, not just the time served since sentencing.

Vella has been in custody since February 2000, point out his lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt, arguing that this should count towards the 25-year qualifying period. This would push his parole date forward by eleven years to 2025.

Quoting a number of European human rights cases, the lawyers said that it was clear that parole boards – which can release prisoners back into the community on strict conditions – were tied to periods of incarceration and not dates of sentencing.

The European Court had made reference in Vinter vs UK to having “served a minimum period fixed by law” which the lawyers pointed out, did not speak about the date of the sentence.

“In a worst case scenario,” if the court disagreed with this reasoning, submitted the lawyers, “the point of departure should then be the date of his original sentence,” and not when it was confirmed on appeal.

The application called on the court of criminal appeal to uphold the judgment in the main part and change the date from which the 25-year qualifying period for parole starts counting to the date of his arrest or, failing that, to the date of his original sentence.