The efficacy of witness protection within the Maltese criminal law and judicial competence : a legislative deficiency or an enforcement lapse?

Abstract

This dissertation critically examines the legal framework governing witness protection in Malta, with the aim of determining whether it provides adequate safeguards for witnesses while maintaining the fundamental right to a fair trial. Witness testimony plays a central role in criminal proceedings, often forming the basis upon which courts establish facts and determine guilt. However, the effectiveness of such testimony is inherently dependent on the willingness and ability of individuals to come forward without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or harm. This raises the fundamental question of whether the Maltese legal system offers sufficient protection to those who assume this essential role within the administration of justice. The study adopts a doctrinal black-letter methodology, supported by comparative legal analysis and a review of relevant academic literature. It examines the principal legislative instruments that indirectly regulate witness protection in Malta, namely the Police Act, the Criminal Code, and the Protection of the Whistleblower Act. Through this analysis, the dissertation identifies the fragmented and incomplete nature of the current framework, highlighting the absence of a standalone, coherent witness protection regime. The role of Maltese jurisprudence is also considered, particularly in relation to the assessment of witness credibility and the limited extent to which courts can compensate for broader structural deficiencies. A central component of the research is the analysis of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, particularly under Article 6 of the ECHR. This provides a crucial normative framework for evaluating the permissibility of protective measures such as witness anonymity and restricted confrontation. The dissertation explores the inherent tension between the need to protect witnesses and the accused’s right to examine witnesses, demonstrating that any protective measure must remain exceptional, necessary, and accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. The study further incorporates a comparative analysis of foreign jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, and selected small states. These systems illustrate a range of approaches to witness protection, from highly institutionalised relocation programmes to more procedurally focused models. While such frameworks demonstrate the benefits of comprehensive and structured protection regimes, the analysis also recognises the practical limitations faced by small jurisdictions such as Malta, particularly in relation to anonymity, relocation, and long-term protection. The dissertation concludes that the weaknesses within the Maltese witness protection framework are not attributable solely to legislative deficiency or enforcement failure, but rather to a structural interaction between the two. The absence of a coherent legal framework, combined with institutional fragmentation and limited operational capacity, results in a system that is reactive, inconsistent, and insufficiently equipped to address the realities of modern criminal justice. In light of these findings, the study argues for integrated reform, including the adoption of a dedicated witness protection framework, the establishment of specialised institutional structures, the development of clearer procedural safeguards, and enhanced cross-border cooperation. Such reforms are necessary not only to safeguard witnesses, but also to preserve the integrity, effectiveness, and fairness of the Maltese criminal justice system as a whole.