Anna Mallia challenges the criticism of the judge in Lorin Scicluna’s case

Lawyer Anna Mallia has challenged those who accused Judge Natasha Galea Sciberras of misapplying the law when sentencing Lorin Scicluna. The dispute concerns the judge’s statement that the Attorney General had tied the court’s hands by specifying a maximum prison term of nine years in the bill of indictment.

In her response, Mallia referred directly to Article 596 of Malta’s Criminal Code. In her view, this provision supports the judge’s position that she could not impose a punishment exceeding that requested by the Attorney General.

The lawyers who presented themselves as local experts in the rule of law argued that the judge had the discretion to impose a severer punishment and accused her of avoiding responsibility for the sentencing decision. That is a serious accusation against a judge who explained that she was acting within the legal limits of her authority.

In Scicluna’s case, we must distinguish between the charges on which he was acquitted and those on which he was convicted. The jury acquitted him of murder and attempted murder. He was convicted of grievously injuring May Malimi in a hit-and-run and of using a vehicle without registration plates. The judge subsequently imposed an eight-year prison sentence. Describing the conviction simply as reckless driving would therefore be inaccurate.

Eight years in prison is a substantial punishment.

The central legal issue here is the distinction between the maximum punishment generally available under the law and the punishment a court may impose under a particular indictment.

Article 596 addresses cases in which a legally recognised excuse permits punishment to be reduced within a range encompassing two or more degrees. It allows the Attorney General to request a lesser punishment within that range, while requiring the excuse to be specified in the indictment. In those circumstances, the court cannot impose a punishment severer than the one requested. This is what had happened in the Scicluna’s case. This is also the provision Mallia invokes in defence of the judge. The court was bound by the ceiling set in the indictment. This must be distinguished from the judge’s separate decision to impose eight years rather than nine or even more, as is stipulated by law to be the maximum for such a type of offence.

Therefore, those accusing the judge of misapplying the law need to explain why Article 596 does not govern this case. Simply asserting that she could have imposed a harsher sentence does not answer that argument.