Bail for the baleful?
“If you can afford to buy vitamins, you probably don’t need them.” I was 18 when someone said that to me and it took a while for the penny to drop. If I could afford to splurge on an expensive jar of vitamins, which would definitely outlive its shelf life, I could just as easily afford a healthy diet.
Calling it a ‘metaphor for life’ may be a stretch but I’ve never quite forgotten the implications of that conversation which, over the years, has served as a useful analogy in other respects. The most recent: bail conditions.
Eliot Paul Busuttil, Jeremie Camilleri and Daniel Muka share a common denominator – they were all known to the police and out on bail when they (allegedly) killed their victims. I’m not privy to their bail conditions but I daresay these included curfews, signing at a police station, relinquishing their passports and, naturally, the sine qua non condition not to commit another offence. Fat lot of good.
The main – and only purpose – of bail conditions is to ensure that people who are facing criminal proceedings don’t reoffend and do appear in court when expected to.
In an ideal world, magistrates would adopt a bespoke approach, addressing specific risks and then tailoring conditions to the individual needs of offenders after carefully assessing who is violent and high risk, who isn’t, who poses a flight risk and who can be released without any conditions at all.
In the main, wheat and chaff are never properly separated, and bail conditions seem to be unimaginatively regurgitated, without rhyme or reason.
Some conditions are completely reasonable and make sense across the board. But others are largely futile and should only apply to violent, repeat, or dangerous offenders.
So, although a curfew seems like a good idea when you’re dealing with habitual offenders likely to commit crimes late at night or in the early hours of the morning, it’s the sort of condition which can’t really be enforced. And while signing at the police station can be an effective way of keeping tabs on defendants, particularly foreigners or offenders who play truant, has it ever stopped anyone reoffending or absconding?
My contention is that when it comes to many ‘corporate’ non-violent offenders with an otherwise spotless criminal record who show up to every sitting, withholding passports, imposing curfews and signing are, quite frankly, uncalled for and a monumental waste of everyone’s time. What it does is add to the court’s already excessive workload and to Malta’s traffic problem. Moreover, these people are usually charged vicariously, in their capacity as company directors, and are a far cry from the delinquents that pose a real danger to society.
Unfortunately, much like with vitamins, it’s the people who don’t need conditions who buy into and obey them while the ones who do will ignore them at everyone else’s peril and escape police and court radar until it’s too late. I recently experienced this pantomime first hand. This time, the rigmarole was passport related.
Most defendants are asked to relinquish their passports in court pending proceedings, presumably to prevent absconding. Of course, what courts seem to forget is that people who have decided they want out, like the Calleja Maatouks, don’t bother asking the court for travel permission or their passports. But let’s leave that alone for the moment.
A friend who is out on bail and travels frequently is required to submit a detailed application to the court, requesting travel permission and attaching her ticket and hotel booking every time she needs to travel. The request reaches the magistrate who, in the past, has upheld all her other travel requests. For some reason, the application is still sent to the Attorney General’s Office for approval and is then ping-ponged back to the magistrate where a long-winded decree, identical to the previous 20, follows.
Her travel movements are restricted to the destination where she is travelling, and she’s prohibited from residing at any other place other than the one indicated in the hotel booking.
She’s also asked to deposit an additional sum of money and only then, two weeks later, can she finally collect her passport from the court registrar. Once in possession, she is trusted to go to the passport office where her passport is dutifully stamped, restricting travel to the destination in question.
Nobody would know the difference if she didn’t but that’s by the by because she would never dream of flouting the rules.
Now, when you’re queuing for a Ryanair flight along with 200 other passengers, waiting for passport verification at the gate, you’re lucky if the person at the check-in desk actually looks at you or your passport photo, never mind the obscure stamp buried somewhere on page 15.
If courts really want to hold on to people’s passports – fine. I can certainly understand the need for recourse to the court and strict vetting when dealing with untrustworthy offenders. But why perpetuate this ridiculous charade across the board?
People like my friend should be allowed to send an email to the magistrate’s registrar, providing travel dates, bookings et al and then collect her passport without having to engage a lawyer every time. People who can afford to travel can afford to deposit an additional sum of money in court at the start of proceedings, forfeitable if their passport is not returned to court within three days of their return.
We hear of so many people with a history of violence who have been allowed to roam the streets and drive their cars freely, with tragic consequences and no regard to public safety or the security of victims. I would feel much happier knowing these people were being monitored electronically.
The courts and the police should focus their attention and energy on imposing appropriate restrictions on those who really need them – an area where they regularly and tragically fail, instead of copying and pasting decrees that place unnecessary restrictions on those whom they know, or ought to know, pose absolutely no risk or danger to society.
“We hear of so many people with a history of violence who have been allowed to roam the streets