People charged with drug trafficking are often subjected to a freezing order, which means their assets are frozen for the duration of the case, no matter how long it takes.

They are then given a temporary bank account to ensure they live “sufficiently”, but the annual cap on this account is set at less than €14,000. This amount hasn’t budged since 1994, even though pretty much everything has become much more expensive.

A new law currently under discussion in Parliament will give the accused the right to request a median wage for the duration of the case but it won’t apply to drug trafficking cases.

While updating it will certainly be controversial, maintaining the status quo has serious implications as it forces people to struggle on €1,167 a month for as long as the case takes, and this despite their presumed innocence at law.

2. More leniency when cases take over a decade to go to trial

Cases dragging on for ages are a stain on Malta’s justice system.

While crimes shouldn’t go unpunished, the courts could consider the length of time when delivering sentences, with other criteria such as the nature of the case, reports from social workers and probation officers, consultation with victims, and other potential risk factors.

3. More power to merge similar cases into a single case

If a person is hit with multiple cases of a similar nature – for example, if they’re involved in three separate drug trafficking cases – the Attorney General can decide to merge their cases into a single case or try them separately.

It is usually in the suspect’s best interests for the cases to be tried at once, as multiple cases tend to lead to longer accumulated sentences, not to mention more time and resources battling them.

The prisoner warned that multiple petty offenses can sometimes lead to longer sentences than some murder cases in Malta and said he knows some drug victims who have been jailed for over 28 years. This risks turning the very concept of justice on its head.

A potential workaround could be to allow the courts the power to decide whether to merge similar cases and not just leave it up to the Attorney General.

4. Revising the ‘extra imprisonment’ rule

It is common practice for courts to dish out fines as part of a punishment, over and above imprisonment, and to covert the fines into extra incarceration if the prisoner cannot afford it.

This is questionable on two fronts. It means wealthier people get to spend less time in prison than poorer people who committed the exact same crime, which is ethically concerning in and of itself.

But, from a purely public finance point of view, it is also ironic that if the state cannot gain income from you through a fine, it will instead spend more money on your continued imprisonment.

5. End rigid reliance on quantity of drugs

The controversy around this reform arose in the first place because the government wants an upwards revision of the maximum quantity of drugs that an addict can be found trafficking for a magistrate to announce a Drugs Court, which focuses on the person’s rehabilitation.

Provided the numbers stay as there are, the new limits will be 500g of cannabis, 500 ecstasy pills, and 200g of cocaine and heroin.

But this could just be kicking the can further down the road. How is it fair for Genuine Addict A who is caught with 500 pills to be given a chance at rehabilitation while Genuine Addict B who is caught with 501 pills must face a judge or jury and possibly a lengthy prison sentence?

A solution could be to scrap this reliance on drug quantities and thresholds entirely and to allow the judiciary full flexibility in deciding whether a person qualifies for the Drugs Court based on the nature of the case.

While the prisoner admitted these reforms could be unpopular, he urged legislators to update these longstanding laws to reflect “contemporary values”.

“Implementing these reforms would significantly impact the lives of individuals enduring prolonged legal battles, offering them a chance for transformation and a renewed start,” he said.

“The silent suffering of those hesitant to discuss their past cases in public deserves understanding and support, emphasizing the urgency of implementing more sensible and humane laws.”

Do you agree with these proposed reforms?