Sentencing policy in Malta in relation to offences of bodily harm

Abstract

The title of this thesis has been chosen with the aim of assessing the Maltese situation on Sentencing as a means to establish the way forwards and to possibly enhance consistency in sentences handed out by our law courts. Even if from the onset such procedural area of Criminal Law is at the centre of the effective working of the local criminal justice system, this area has not yet been thoroughly explored. This study will start by delving into the detail on the legal provisions of the offence of Bodily Harm in our code. The classification thereof and the way our courts deal with such offence, including the punishments awarded will also be reviewed. Whilst fully acknowledging judicial discretion, the author, with the help of a questionnaire study carried out, suggests that it may now be appropriate that a specific protocol as a form for sentencing framework be enacted for our courts. Having noted both warranted and unjustified criticism from sections of the media and the public at large, for the excessive delays faced ,day-in day-out ,in our courts and also in respect of perceptibly inappropriate sentences being awarded by the Court of Magistrates, the author undertakes a detailed examination of the situation obtaining at present in our local Courts. To further evaluate, discern and clarify the rationale behind this thesis, a comparative study has been carried out with two Nations adopting quite similar Sentencing methods but, in certain key-aspects, different to that of the Maltese system. Furthermore, the author will analyse in depth the position of the European Union as regards to consistency in effective sentencing and any practical recommendations it puts forwards for Member States to align to and preferably abide by. For this, the writer will focus on the EU Recommendation No. R (92) 17 concerning Consistency in Sentencing put forward by the Committee of Ministers in 1993. This Chapter will also delve into detail on a study carried out by a senior lecturer on the ways of achieving substantive cum perceptive harmonisation in criminal sentencing procedure.