OAR@UM Collection:https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1133382026-09-01T23:18:01Z2026-09-01T23:18:01ZConstitutional redress for institutional failureshttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1484102026-08-05T08:30:42Z2025-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Constitutional redress for institutional failures
Abstract: The wife and daughter of marine biologist Albert Brian Rosso, who disappeared nearly 20 years ago, have been awarded €350,000 in compensation after the court found that the state had failed to protect his fundamental right to life.
The case in the names of Mary Rose Rosso and Desiree Marie Grech Rosso vs. the State Advocate, Attorney General, and Commissioner of Police, was heard before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction. The proceedings were initiated by Rosso’s wife and daughter as his immediate relatives, following his disappearance on 10 October 2005, These constitutional proceedings were triggered due to procedural pitfalls that severely impacted the Rosso family following Mr. Rosso’s disappearance in 2005. [extract]2025-01-01T00:00:00ZThe lawyer’s vital role in the criminal processhttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1484092026-08-05T08:26:57Z2025-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: The lawyer’s vital role in the criminal process
Abstract: Cicero gave us the maxim, Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus (we are all servants of the laws in order that we may be free). It is a maxim that encapsulates the concept of the rule of law, meaning that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself.
Beyond a shadow of doubt, this maxim finds its best application in criminal law. Indeed, it is the duty of every legal practitioner, be it a judge, magistrate or lawyer (prosecution or defence), to apply and interpret the law rigorously and fairly in the best interests of justice. [extract]2025-01-01T00:00:00ZStandard of proof required in criminal trialshttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1484052026-08-05T08:17:05Z2025-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Standard of proof required in criminal trials
Abstract: There are two recognised standards of proof namely: “beyond reasonable doubt” and “on the balance of probabilities”. Putting it more simply, it is one thing having different standards, but quite another trying to explain the difference between them.
By and large, a jury is under an obligation to acquit if unsatisfied with the evidence submitted. During the late 17th century England, in the course of directing juries there gradually developed the concept that a jury must decide on evidence adduced rather than on private knowledge. The jurors had to be satisfied in their conscience of the guilt or innocence of the accused. During the 18th century other new concepts were introduced, such as that the jury had to be certain ‘beyond doubt’. [extract]2025-01-01T00:00:00ZCriminal liability and artificial intelligence : quo vadis?https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/1483902026-08-04T08:05:40Z2025-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Criminal liability and artificial intelligence : quo vadis?
Abstract: The word “artificial” denotes something which is man-made. The word “intelligence” is more abstract and more difficult to define. Intelligence refers to the capacity to develop and evolve over time adapting to a given environment. Intelligent beings ‘learn’ to become more efficient at what they do.
Placed together the term ‘artificial intelligence’ would refer to a man-made object capable to autonomously adapt to change, to develop and evolve. [extract]2025-01-01T00:00:00Z