In delivering sentence, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offences and the harm caused to the victim. However, it also considered the mitigating factors presented, including the accused’s clean criminal record, his early guilty plea, and, most significantly, his age at the time of the offence.
The Magistrates’ Court, presided over by Magistrate Giannella Camilleri Busuttil, delivered judgement on 9 December 2025 in a criminal case involving a violent assault and significant property damage committed in December 2024.
The accused, who was a minor at the time of the incident, pleaded guilty to all charges brought against him. Although he was no longer a minor when prosecuted, the court applied the legal framework applicable to juveniles when determining punishment.
The case concerned an incident that occurred in the early hours of 7 December 2024, between approximately 4am and 6am, in Triq Hompesch, Fgura, and other locations in Malta. According to the charges filed by the prosecution, the accused caused grievous bodily harm to the victim without the intention to kill or endanger life, using an improvised weapon. The severity of the injuries was medically certified. In addition, the accused was charged with wilfully causing extensive damage to property belonging to the same victim, with the value of the damage exceeding €2,500.
At the time the offences were committed, the accused was still under the age of 18. By the time the case reached court and sentence was handed down, he had turned 18. This distinction proved crucial in the court’s final decision on punishment, as Maltese law requires courts to consider the age of the offender at the time of the offence when applying sentencing provisions.
During the proceedings, the accused formally admitted guilt to all charges. The court confirmed that this admission was voluntary and unconditional, and that it was made after the accused had been warned of its legal consequences and granted sufficient time to reconsider his plea. As a result of this admission, the court found the accused guilty without the need for a full evidentiary trial.
The prosecution outlined the seriousness of the offences, emphasising both the violent nature of the assault and the substantial financial damage caused. The prosecution initially requested that, in the event of a conviction, the court apply the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code allowing for compensation and restitution to the victim, as well as protective measures to ensure the victim’s safety. The prosecution also requested that the court consider additional legal measures available under Maltese law for serious offences.
The defence for the accused, focused its submissions primarily on mitigation. The defence highlighted that the accused had no prior criminal record and that he had cooperated fully with the authorities by admitting guilt at a relatively early stage. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the accused was a minor at the time of the incident, arguing that this warranted the application of juvenile sentencing provisions aimed at rehabilitation rather than punishment alone. During a sitting held in September 2025, defence counsel informed the court that the accused had provided the victim with a cheque for €2,500 as a full and final settlement of all civil claims, subject to the completion of vehicle repairs in accordance with an independent surveyor’s report. This arrangement was confirmed in court by the lawyer representing the victim, who accepted the settlement on the stated conditions. In light of this agreement, the prosecution informed the court that it was no longer pursuing its request for a compensation order.
The court also took into account a pre-sentencing report prepared by a probation officer. The report recommended a suspended sentence combined with a supervision order, stressing the need for psychological or psychiatric treatment to address the accused’s aggressive behaviour. The probation officer noted the importance of ensuring that the accused understood the seriousness of his obligations under such an order and the consequences of any breach.
In delivering sentence, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offences and the harm caused to the victim. However, it also considered the mitigating factors presented, including the accused’s clean criminal record, his early guilty plea, and, most significantly, his age at the time of the offence. On this basis, the court applied Article 37 of the Criminal Code, which governs the sentencing of offenders who were minors when the crime was committed.
The court sentenced the accused to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of four years. In addition, a three-year supervision order was imposed, placing the accused under the oversight of a probation officer and subject to specific conditions, including treatment requirements. A restraining order was also issued to protect the victim, prohibiting contact for a period of three years.
Finally, the court ordered a ban on the publication of the accused’s name and personal details, citing the fact that he was a minor at the time of the offences.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
