I made my position long ago known about hunting. I am one who thinks that hunting should be abolished in Malta. However, I cannot fail to empathize with Kirsten Mifsud nicknamed il-Benghazi, for being sentenced to one-year imprisonment and fined 5000 euros and his gun confiscated. I am one of those who do not believe in exemplary justice. Luckily, I realize that I am not alone, as a number of newspapers have taken a position similar to mine regarding this verdict. Many think that a one-year prison sentence for killing a protected bird is excessive. The least that Malta needs at the moment is to develop its endogenous form of kangaroo court. Some prefer to qualify this type of sentence as “gustizzjalizmu”.
I can never concur with any court, which uses justice to send outexemplary sentences. I do not believe in such sentences and history stands to my support. In this case, there is no doubt that the magistrate gave a sentence,which was within the boundaries of the current laws. But when one compares this sentence to other sentences given for more serious crimes, one cannot fail to notice that this was excessively disproportionate and the magistrate had used the legal leeway or discretion rather excessively in this case.
The role of justice is not to set up examples but simply to perform justice. Exemplary sentences defy the concept of justice itself. After decades during which the local authorities closed their eyes to illegal hunting and protected hunting abuse, now we are going to the other extreme;a hunter was condemned for one-year imprisonment for the killing of a protected bird!
This sentence brings to the fore other short comings in our justice system. It is now clear that when magistrates want, they can deliver quick judgements. Normally, our court cases, both civil and criminal, drag for years. This time, this case was miraculously a short one. The same holds for the police. More serious cases, like child abuse or wife battering are treated more leniently by our cops. In the same period when Mifsud was brought under arrest in court, another individualwas accused of child abuse. Instead of being brought under arrest, he was made to appear in front of the magistrate courts by a simple court notification.Whyare these accusedtreated differently by the police?Again, when they want the police can find witnesses to give testimony in court.Two witnessesin this hunting case were accompanied by police to court.
Rightly so, the social media is in a rage and the case of Manuel Mallia’s driver was brought as an example. Sheenanwas accused of shooting at a man, and Mifsud is in for shooting at a bird, with the difference thatSheenan is out and the other one was given a one-year prison term.
Our judges and magistrates are individuals who should judge apolitically and their judgements areto be based on the laws of the land. Butthe way how the laws are being interpreted is varying from one case to another and this is creating an injustice. The message being sent is that we, the Maltese citizens, are not all equal in front of the law. The message that such sentences are sending is that it is better to kill a human beingthan a bird or an animal.One has better chance to be treated with clemency in the first than in the second case.
But the cherry on the cake was the magistrate’s comment that in giving such a severe sentence, he took into consideration the fact that Mifsud’s action brought about the closing of the hunting season. I found this extremely ridiculous.
The magistracy should stay out of politics and should not give justifications to political action. The Prime Minister’s decision to close the hunting season was a political action, which he has the right to take and I fully endorse. In simple words, it was an arbitrary decision and no court has the right to base its judgements on arbitrary decisions taken by politicians. In simple words, the magistrate went for a harsher sentence than usual because this hunter’s action led to a collective punishment by the Prime Minister against all hunters.
Our judges and magistrates should keep the cardinal principle of separation between the judiciary and the executive. In reality, not every one at the bench respects such a separation of powers. Whenever this separation is not kept, our courts end up delivering arbitrary sentences.
The fact that the Prime Minister closed the hunting season three days before its actual closing date should be understood within the context of the referendum results. The referendum figures showed the Prime Minister the mistake he made in supporting the yes vote. Despite the fact that the “yes” vote won in the referendum, Joseph Muscat realized that he was the biggest loser.
It is a recognized fact that Muscat gave his full support for a yes victory. In the last week of the campaign, he emphatically asked his Labour supporters to vote yes. The Labour media drummed this message and various Labour commentators insisted directly or indirectly that true Labourities should vote yes. L-Orizzont even wrote an editorial demanding from its readers a yes support. The Labour canvassers started trawling the streets reminding lukewarm Labourites that they should vote yes because the Leader had said so. Even on the day of voting, Labour “pickets” continued to campaign for a yes vote.
Therefore Muscat’s decision should be read within this background. He was seeking the first opportunity to get back the sympathy and the support of the environmentalists or at least, prevent that their vote goes to the PN either by switching or abstaining or invalidating their vote.This would provedisastrous for Labour.