Should a person who is found criminally responsible be automatically liable for civil damages, and to what extent?

Abstract

This study focuses on how our civil jurisprudence handles cases involving a tortfeasor who had already been convicted in a previous criminal action. It incorporates a comparative study of Maltese and Common law of evidence; given that Maltese law, like many Common law jurisdictions, allows a prior criminal conviction to be presented as evidence in a subsequent civil action. Article 1033 of the Civil Code1 stipulates that fault is found if a person is “..guilty of any act or omission constituting a breach of the duty imposed by law”, and “..shall be liable for any damage resulting therefrom”. In all the Civil judgements analysed for the purposes of this study, the Court consistently declared that it is not bound by any prior judicial proceedings and is free to decide on the evidence presented before it, however these cases were invariably decided in line with the Criminal Court’s position and at times the criminal judgment was also given prominent weighting in the Civil Court’s evaluation of evidence. Bearing in mind the above, the author concluded that in view of the consistent position adopted in case law, the more onerous level of proof of the criminal action, and the clear position established in article 1033 of the Civil Code, the criminal conviction should be an automatic declaration of fault in a subsequent civil action and there should be no need to re-establish the tortfeasor’s responsibility. The Civil Court only needs to examine the tortfeasor’s extent of responsibility after taking into consideration any contributory negligence, and then determines the amount of compensation. This approach has the added benefit that cases can be decided faster and ensures a more efficient administration of justice which is achieved through continuity and consistency between the Criminal and Civil judgments.