The Death of the Presumption of Innocence: Malta Is Not Far Behind Spain

I am sharing this article following the controversy in Spain, where the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 10 March 2025 has ignited serious concerns across Europe. The ruling, which upheld a mother’s actions despite her false accusations against her former partner, has been widely criticised for effectively destroying the presumption of innocence in cases involving men accused of gender-based violence. The association Justicia de Género is now calling on the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against Spain for violating EU directives and fundamental rights. But while all eyes are on Spain, Malta is silently following a similar trajectory—and the consequences are just as alarming.

In Spain, the debate centres on a disturbing trend: when a man is accused of domestic abuse, he is presumed guilty from the outset. It is up to him to prove otherwise. The court ruling has highlighted this systemic bias, and the Spanish legal system now faces scrutiny from its citizens and potentially from the European Union itself. In Malta, we don’t need to declare that we are on the same path—Maltese men and fathers already know this from bitter experiences.

Increasingly, in our courtrooms, men find themselves treated as guilty before any evidence is properly examined. The presumption of innocence – a cornerstone of democratic justice – is being eroded in practice, even if it remains enshrined in law. I have personally experienced this erosion.

In one court hearing, a female magistrate asked me whether I considered Yorgen Fenech innocent. The implication was clear: if I believed in his right to be presumed innocent, I was expected to justify that belief. But the fact is, Fenech has not yet been tried. Trial by jury – the constitutional safeguard determining guilt – has not occurred. Regardless of the gravity or profile of the case, any citizen should be regarded as innocent until found guilty by due process. Yet here was a magistrate and a lawyer engaging in a line of questioning that presumed guilt without a verdict. They were applying the logic that one is guilty until proven innocent.

Moreover, I have been informed that the Chief Justice entrusted the same lawyer involved in that exchange to examine upcoming lawyers who will shape the next generation of Malta’s legal system. Our judiciary is in serious trouble if this is the standard of reasoning they promote.

This is not about defending one individual or case. This is about defending the principle that protects us all. Once we allow the courts to flip the burden of proof and accept that accusation equals guilt, we are no longer governed by justice but by presumption and fear.

The Spanish example is not an isolated anomaly; it is a warning. The European Commission may respond to Spain’s breach, but who will act for Malta? If Maltese men and fathers do not speak up and challenge the slow collapse of their rights, the erosion of the presumption of innocence will soon become irreversible.

What follows is the English translation of the article published in Libertad Digital in Spain regarding the Spanish Constitutional Court’s judgment undermining the presumption of innocence. The parallels with Malta are clear. The danger is not only real—it is already here.

Europe is Asked to Sanction Spain Over Constitutional Court Ruling That Violates the Presumption of Innocence of Men

Sandra León | 23/3/2025 – 07:00

The controversial ruling of Spain’s Constitutional Court, which undermines the presumption of innocence for men, has not only sparked debate among judges but also provoked outrage among those most affected: fathers who have been fighting for years to clear their names from false accusations and, above all, to regain custody of their children. These individuals are now turning to Europe to demand action.

“The Spanish Constitutional Court, through a ruling drafted by Judge María Luisa Balaguer, has just guaranteed impunity for a crime,” denounces the association Justicia de Género, led by Nacho Viña—himself a father who has long opposed the Gender Violence Law. He warns that the controversial decision constitutes a “grave violation” of several EU directives, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.

What the Ruling Says

The contentious ruling, written by Judge Balaguer, endorses a mother who fled with her children to another city without the consent of her ex-partner, claiming she acted in a context of gender-based violence. However, it overlooks the fact that the man was acquitted and that the trial court acknowledged the “spurious motivations” behind the accusation she made.

This position led judges César Tolosa and Enrique Arnaldo to issue a forceful dissenting opinion, declaring that the ruling represents a “clear violation of the right to the presumption of innocence of the already-acquitted accused” and therefore contravenes Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution and Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Appeal to Europe

Following this, Justicia de Género has petitioned the European Commission—specifically the Commissioner for Justice—to open an infringement procedure against Spain on the grounds that the ruling breaches at least two EU directives: Directive 2012/29, which defines what constitutes a victim, and Directive 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence.

“EU regulations are very clear: you cannot be considered a victim without a conviction, and you cannot be called an abuser without one either,” argues Nacho Viña. “To me, it’s outrageous—that’s why we’re asking the European Commission to launch an investigation.”

He explains that Brussels is legally obliged to respond. “If an investigation is opened, Spain will be given a deadline to rectify the ruling. If Spain fails to act, it could be fined, lose EU funding, or even face action before the European Court of Justice,” Viña warns.

He acknowledges that the chances of success are slim but stresses the importance of civic engagement. “Evil prevails when good people do nothing. In this country, there are decent judges, magistrates, and prosecutors who could do something, but they don’t. They complain but remain inactive, afraid of consequences or losing their positions. So in the end, it’s up to the citizens to act,” he emphasizes.

The “Aberrant” Gender Violence Law

Viña traces this situation back to the approval of the 2004 Gender Violence Law, which he describes as the root of this erosion of legal safeguards. “This ruling is just the final straw in a law that was already aberrant from the start,” he insists, recalling that all the initial reports were against the law because it was deemed unconstitutional.

He also references a viral video of Alfonso Guerra, in which the former politician admitted, “You don’t know the pressure we were under to make it legal.” Viña comments: “They knew it was unconstitutional, but they still pushed it through, and now everything has followed from that—this culture where the law is applauded while men are crushed. The presumption of innocence didn’t just vanish with this ruling; it was already gone in 2004. But this is the final blow.”

Viña also points to the long-term effects of the law, noting that two decades later, the children raised under its influence are now suffering serious psychological trauma. “There are many cases showing this law has been devastating—it’s destroying families,” he concludes.