I refer to the letters "Punishment must fit the crime" by Charles Micallef (June 22) and "Court sentencing" by Peter D. Mifsud (June 23).

With regard to the first letter, it has to be pointed out that the difference in punishment meted out to the person who was sentenced to life imprisonment and the three other accused who were only found guilty of aggravated theft arose from the fact that in the case of the latter three accused the Attorney General had withdrawn the aggravation of wilful homicide from the original bill of indictment.

This brought down the maximum punishment from life imprisonment to one of nine years. Furthermore, in the case of one of these co-accused who was sentenced to five years imprisonment (not four as stated by your correspondent), the Attorney General had also withdrawn the charge of relapsing.

It is up to the legislator and not the courts to determine whether punishments are to be increased for similar cases.

In the case of the second letter, the thrust of the article is that punishments for crimes involving minors should be harsher so as to act as a deterrent and to prevent offenders from committing a second crime. It was also hinted that our courts tend to award harsher punishment to foreigners.

The writer of the letter appears not to have read the judgments in question, or may have relied on reports of the cases appearing in newspapers. Unfortunately, these reports in many instances fail to give a true picture of the facts of the case and of the legal issues involved.

Your correspondent took up his argument from a false premise, namely that an Egyptian man was sentenced to three years jail for exposing himself in front of an 11-year-old girl.

Without commenting on, or going into, the merits of this case, it is to be pointed out that according to the judgment (delivered by the Court of Magistrates on May 6, 2004) the man in question was found guilty not only of exposing himself but also of having masturbated in front of a girl under the age of 12 years and so having defiled her (Section 203 of the Criminal Code).

He was also convicted of having committed an offence against decency or morals in public (Section 209). The man was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years and one month. It is not clear from your correspondent's letter whether he considers this too mild a punishment or whether he is considering it as being too harsh because this man was a foreigner.

In the second case referred to by your correspondent where the offender was convicted of defilement of a minor and violent indecent assault, the court took into account the clean conduct record of the defendant, the fact that he had filed a guilty plea at the outset of the case and that there were special circumstances which warranted the application of a reduced punishment. It accordingly sentenced him to two years imprisonment suspended for a period of four.

The third case referred to by your correspondent, where the offender was only found guilty of "violent indecent assault", appears to have been of a far lesser gravity than the others.

When drawing comparisons between these cases decided by different courts, where two of the offenders were found guilty "of violent indecent assault", your correspondent might have been wrongly impressed by the terminology describing this offence.

Our law covers a very wide range of sexual offences ranging, in descending order of gravity, from rape (or attempted rape) (Section 198), to defilement of minors (Section 203), to violent indecent assault (Section 207). A mere touch on the victim's person might in certain circumstances be sufficient to constitute this latter offence. In fact the word "violent" in this context simply means that the act, e.g. the touch, took place without the victim's consent.

No violence or assault in the ordinary sense of these words need take place and the acts must not be such as to constitute the graver offences of rape, attempted rape or defilement of minors. The punishment for violent indecent assault is much lower than that for defilement of minors.

One can only compare like with like. In this case your correspondent is commenting on three different judgments delivered by three different courts, dealing with different sets of circumstances and offences.

In passing sentence the Courts of Criminal Justice have to take into account many factors, including the gravity of the offence or offences of which the offender is convicted, the frequency with which they have been committed, the circumstances in which the acts were committed, the age or other particular situation of the victim, the accused's criminal record (if any) and the risk factor that he presents to the community at large, whether he is charged with having relapsed, whether he has cooperated with the police, whether he has filed a timely plea of guilt etc. It is precisely for this reason that the law allows a very wide latitude to the judge or magistrate in between the minimum and maximum punishments that can be handed down.

This discretion has been made even wider over the years with the introduction of probation, conditional or unconditional discharge and, more recently, of the suspended sentence and community service order. As such no fair and objective comparison between different cases is possible unless accompanied by a detailed and correct analysis of the particular facts of each case and of the law applicable. It is only unjustified disparity in sentences that can be objectionable.

For instance, with reference to the third case mentioned, it has to be pointed out that the course of action adopted by the court (as far as sentencing is concerned) was not only agreed to by the victim's parents but also by the prosecutor from the Attorney General's Office.

In this case proceedings were instituted on the complaint of the minor's parents. Under normal circumstances the parents can withdraw such a complaint until final judgment is delivered. In the instant case, after the offender was sentenced by the first court to a term of nine months imprisonment, the parents first requested in writing the appellate court to stop the proceedings and, after being examined under oath by the court as to their motives for making such a request, they gave a reasonable explanation which was also accepted by the prosecutor.

This being so, it was agreed by the parents and the prosecutor that if the court were to confirm the conviction, in view of this development, a suspended sentence would be more in keeping with the circumstances of the case.

In fact, had the incident not happened in a public place, the case would have been dismissed there and then upon the withdrawal of the complaint, but as it did take place in public, according to case law, the parents' withdrawal of the complaint could not stop proceedings at that stage, but it could only be taken into account for the purpose of determining the punishment to be meted out.

The court accordingly took account of this important development and suspended the sentence of nine months for the maximum period allowed by law, that is four years.

In view of the above it is clear that your correspondent's statement that the courts are letting people off "with only a slap on the wrist as punishment" in these cases is way off the mark.

It is an acknowledged fact that in criminal proceedings the most difficult and exacting task the courts have to face is to fit the punishment to the crime and the offender. The last thing that will help the courts in this difficult task is unfounded allegations or insinuations in the media by correspondents who have failed to examine carefully the particular facts of each case and the detailed reasons given in the respective court judgments.

Mr Galea is registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals.