The objects and reasons of this Bill focus upon ‘in genere’ (inquests). The Bill follows on the lines of the recommendation made by the Venice Commission in its Opinion of the 18th December 2018.

The Bill however does not transfer the conduct of inquests to the Attorney General as suggested in the said Opinion but for the purpose of checks and balances, it grants to the Attorney General a more central and better defined role in inquests without impinging upon the independence of Magistrates and Judges.

In particular the Bill:

(i) proposes measures for inquest proceedings to be expedited and conducted within stated time limits and with more fairness with the persons concerned;

(ii) distinguishes between an inquest opened on the request of the Police or the Attorney General in accordance with sub-article (1) of article 546 of the Criminal Code and an inquest opened on the request of a private party on a suspected person in accordance with sub-article (4A) of the said article and obliges the complainant to file his report, information or complaint together with a request to open an inquest in accordance with article 546(4A) initially with the Police. The Bill stipulates that such person may subsequently after the lapse of six months file an application before the Criminal Court to request the opening of an inquest, if the investigations have not been concluded and in the case that no decision to prosecute or not to prosecute has been taken. On such application the Criminal Court shall hear the Executive Police, the complainant, the suspected person and other witnesses in camera about the investigation procedures and shall decide whether to allow further time for the investigation to proceed, or to close the investigation or order the opening of an inquest;

(iii) establishes that after the conclusion of the inquest the Magistrate may also, at the request of a person unjustly subjected to an examination, order the payment by an abusive complainant of the expenses of the inquest, without prejudice to any other remedies available at law;

(iv) proposes amendments to better define the purpose of the inquest proceedings and the function of the Magistrate in those proceedings in the light of what has been held by the Courts from time to time, about the Magistrates’ role and the laws in force in Malta;

(v) provides that at the end of the inquest the Magistrate shall no longer order that a person be arraigned in court but he shall indicate that a decision has to be taken by the competent prosecution authority as to whether to file criminal charges against that person;

(vi) proposes concrete measures for the better safeguard of the rights of persons who are the subject of inquest proceedings and of the victims of crime;

(vii) includes provisions intended to ensure value for money in expert expenses in the sometimes apparently disproportionate expenses involved in the proceedings in question;

(viii) without imposing a cap on expert’s fees regulates the terms of appointment of experts particularly in cases where it is expected that the expert’s fees would exceed fifty thousand euros (€50,000), and requires that experts are natural persons and that they have undergone a due diligence process before appointment;

(ix) affirms that the criterion for commencing an inquest on the request of a private party is that of having admissible proof as evidence before a court of criminal jurisdiction that shows on a balance of probabilities that the crime may have been committed by a suspected person;

(x) regulates the relationship between the in genere and other procedures which are required to be conducted by other public authorities with regard to certain types of incidents. This should lay the basis for the removal of difficulties currently hindering such entities such as the Bureau for Road Safety Investigation from starting operations.