Tokens: The
basis
of
the
applicant
’s
allegation
of
a
breach
of
Article
7
is
not
a
general
one
as
to
principle
,
but
how
the
discretion
was
applied
in
his
particular
case
when
compared
to
the
Peter
Joseph
Bonnici
case
.
The
applicant
stated
in
page
6
of
his
submissions
that
the
problem
was
the
choice
of
jurisdiction
,
which
gave
rise
to
a
disparity
in
punishment
in
this
case
.
The
applicant
wrongly
indicated
that
Mr
Bonnici
was
tried
before
a
Magistrate
’s
Court
,
whereas
in
fact
he
was
tried
before
the
Criminal
Court
,
and
from
that
mistaken
premise
he
deduced
and
claimed
(
under
the
heading
“
Just
Satisfaction
”
)
that
he
had
spent
four
years
and
six
months
longer
in
detention
than
Mr
Bonnici
,
who
was
sentenced
to
imprisonment
for
a
period
of
seven
years
and
six
months
,
and
accordingly
claimed
85,000
euros
.
The
applicant
therefore
alleged
that
it
was
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court
which
made
the
difference
and
wrongful
use
of
the
Attorney
General
’s
discretion
.
However
,
it
is
clear
that
both
were
judged
by
the
Criminal
Court
and
the
difference
concerned
the
quantity
of
the
illegal
substance
and
the
fact
that
Mr
Bonnici
admitted
the
charges
in
the
initial
stages
of
the
proceedings
and
not
because
of
arbitrary
use
of
the
Attorney
General
’s
discretion
.
So
it
can
not
be
said
,
on
the
basis
of
the
mistaken
premise
made
by
applicant
,
that
there
was
a
breach
of
Article
7
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O