If I understand well, Dr. Debono’s petition to the Constitutional Court was based on establishing the principle of equality of arms, whereby the defence and the prosecution are given procedural equality, and unless I am missing something, this is not the same as discrimination.

In fact, if I understand well, the judgement determined that the accused has the right of appeal if the accused is remanded, and not the right to be granted bail.

An accused is granted bail or otherwise after the hearing of the compliation of evidence. The magistrate decides on that evidence and on the submissions of the defence lawyer and prosecutor.

If there is going to be an appeal, on what new evidence is a different magistrate going to decide differently from the first one.

Does it boil down to a different interpretation of law by different magistrates?