Treason and sedition in Maltese Law

Abstract

In this thesis, I will be limiting myself to a discussion of those crimes found in Maltese Law which, by English Criminal Law standards, are classified under the general headings of "treason" and "sedition" (1 ). have decided to utilise the said terms as our Criminal Law is extensively - though not completely - modelled on English Law notions of "treason" and "sedition" (2). Moreover, I have also included a discussion of a few provisions relating to treason which are found in our Criminal Code which, though properly speaking are not of English Law origin, (save one exception)· do not have any counterparts in English Criminal Law (3). Furthermore, these latter provisions are directly linked and compliment our Criminal Code provisions on treason so much so that their exclusion would not give a complete picture of Maltese crimes against the safety of the Government and this, apart from the fact that these provisions make direct reference and, consequently, must be construed in the light of those sections of our Criminal Code which are modelled on the English Criminal Law notion of "treason". I do not intend to tackle in this thesis the implications of a coup d'état as this is more a matter of Constitutional Law and International Law rather than a Criminal Law question. Nor shall I consider those crimes which may be labelled as "crimes against the state" which do not fall under the headings of "treason" and "sedition" (4). Indeed, I prefer to focus on a smaller number of provisions of Maltese Criminal Law rather than discuss all the crimes against the state as, if were to adopt this method, I would have to deal very briefly with each and every provision of our law relating to crimes against the state, I would have to omit the historical origin and development of each and every one of the said sections and I would even have to restrict local case obtaining on the provisions under review. By restricting myself to only treasonable and seditious offences, I can demonstrate better that the said two concepts are so much akin to each other that sometimes it is difficult to see where the line of demarcation between a treasonable offence and a seditious ·offence lies. Again, the other crimes against the state such as mutiny, insubordination and disaffection, to my mind, should be more properly considered under the heading of "offences of subverting the forces"; spreading of false news, quasi-military organisations are more properly classified under the heading of "crimes against public peace or public order" rather than "crimes against the safety of the Government"; spying and sabotage, although they are not considered to be "crimes against public order" are better classified under the heading of "disclosing official secrets" and "damaging property of the state" but - in any event they are not considered to be "crimes against the safety of the Government"; emergency regulations, on the other hand, are considered to appertain more to the field of "crimes against public order" rather than "crimes against the safety of the Government", even though these type of regulations are usually enacted or brought into force during a period of national crisis. Finally, I have decided to discuss both treason and sedition in this thesis (5) and not only one of the said category of crimes because, as I shall show in the following Title of this Part, one cannot grasp the notion of treason without knowing what sedition, in turn, implies and vice-versa.