Some recent court judgments have raised eyebrows across the islands, in terms of conflicting messages about what constitutes justice.
We must kick off with the premise that Malta is a democracy with its independent courts being an autonomous and respected institution. It had been shaken, most notably in the 1980s and again when a Chief Justice and a senior judge were found guilty of accepting bribes. But by and large, there is good public opinion when it comes to the administration of justice in this country.
In turn, citizens are expected to live within the law, and pay for their transgressions if they do violate the Codes. But what about when we are given conflicting messages? The first case we will mention is the ‘punishment’ given to five men who were charged with assaulting a person during the protests in Marsaxlokk to try and evict beach squatters. The case was simple, the men pleaded guilty and were given a €60 fine for assault and breaching the peace. One committed the crime during the operative period of a suspended prison sentence, which was extended. The victim testified in court and said he forgave the accused. But really? A €60 fine? You get the same for speeding.
We will also mention drug-related cases in general. Over the past months, we have seen a resurgence of incidences where reformed drug addicts (or those well on their way) are given jail time for drug offences committed four or even five years ago. We do not believe that it is in any way beneficial to society when people have made massive efforts to turn their lives around and settle down, get jobs and raise families get jailed for things they have done years ago – mostly related to self harm anyway. It is high time to look into what message we are giving to society.
The last case we will deal with is the infamous gay jibe in Mellieħa. The case, in a nutshell, revolved around a drunk Australian tourist who insinuated that a Mellieħa man was gay. Apparently, he was loud, obnoxious and drunk, and called the Mellieħa man “gay”. The Mellieħa man saw the tourist later and seriously injured him, driving into him with a car.
The court ruled that the Mellieħa man was provoked and that he had to defend his honour because “in his psyche, he had a reputation to defend in his village.”
“The incident happened in Mellieħa, and before fellow villagers, so the insinuation that the accused was ‘gay’ - even if there is nothing wrong with that - perhaps in the accused’s psyche and other villagers’, was not acceptable” – the court said. The accused was conditionally discharged.
Well, we have a question to ask. We mean no offence, but what if we had a Muslim-style family honour killing here in Malta. We have seen it happen in other parts of Europe. What if a father, mother, brother or jilted suitor decided that his honour had been disgraced by a female family member and that she should be killed? What then? Would the aggressor have a “reputation to defend?” Would that be provocation?
The citizens of Malta respect the law. We respect our courts and we respect our judiciary. But such conflicting messages do cause people to wonder.