Age is but a number. Or so it is said. As it happens, age is a lot more than just a number, particularly when considering whether one is classed as an adult or as a minor. That may seem cut and dry on paper - but in Malta, it is anything but.

This is because there is a significant degree of inconsistency over what we legally deem teenagers of a certain age to be responsible enough - and not responsible enough - to do.

This realisation is brought about - and was brought about by many - after a 17-year-old boy allegedly killed courier and father of three Khim Bahandur Pun in a traffic crash last Sunday.

The boy was charged with involuntary homicide, driving under the influence, and a raft of other charges a couple of days later. The court heard how the boy allegedly nicked the keys to the Maserati that was involved in the incident from the hallway drawer that his father put them in and then drove it without a licence.

Because he is a minor, the boy's name was banned from being published.

Now, in the eyes of the court, an individual is a minor until their 18th birthday. Minors aged 16 to 18 are considered to be criminally responsible for their actions, but they usually receive penalties which are reduced by one or two degrees compared to adults.

Their young age can be taken as a factor to reduce sentencing for a crime, and the cases are handled by a Juvenile Court which is presided over by a magistrate. Here, proceedings are usually held behind closed doors - and so the court bans the identity of the minor involved from being published.

Is this set in stone? Not quite - there can be exceptions depending on how the law is interpreted. For instance, in 2018, 17-year-old Liam Debono was accused of attempted murder after a hit-andrun on traffic policeman Simon Schembri. The court back then turned down a request for Debono's name not to be published.

Taking this all at face value, there is sense in the approach - but take it within the context of some other laws in Malta, and one can understand why people are left scratching their heads.

First and foremost, a unanimous political decision lowered Malta's voting age from 18 years to 16 years. It also became possible for 16-year-olds to be elected to local councils and, as of the last local council elections, to be elected as mayors of localities as well.

So on the one hand, a 16-or-17-year-old can get away with a lighter sentence for a criminal offence because the law perceives them as minors - but on the other hand, a 16-or-17-year-old has been given the greatest democratic responsibility that the country can give (being able to vote) and can also be elected into a position of power by being a mayor.

It's not just this: Malta's legal drinking age is 17, the legal age to smoke and purchase tobacco or cannabis is 18, the legal age to getting married was raised from 16 to 18 just last month, and there are proposals to let 17-year-olds ride scooters.

Is it therefore right that ever-increasing responsibility is being given to 16-and-17-year-olds to bring them practically on par with adults, but at the same time that same demographic is not treated as adult when it comes to the courts?

This is a question which, as cases like last Sunday unfortunately take place, will keep coming up.