Editorial

Last January, a 59-year-old Gozitan farmer with little to note by way of previous criminal conduct was convicted of cultivating and trafficking 19 kilos of cannabis. Even though it is accepted as a low-grade drug - and its use is tolerated in more than one EU country - the man was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment, effectively meaning he will spend the rest of his life in jail.

Last week, another Gozitan was sentenced, this time being found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. A motorcyclist died after coming into contact with the truck driven recklessly by the defendant. Although it appeared to be immaterial to the case, there was an aggravating circumstance: the truck's tyres were bald, which made braking considerably more ineffective than it should have been. The man was sentenced to one year imprisonment, suspended for three years.

These contrasting outcomes fuel the contention that there seems to be little rhyme or reason to sentencing policy in Malta's courts. These cases were concluded within a relatively short time of one another, the latter was arguably more serious than the former since it resulted in death, and yet the discrepancy between the two is a gulf difficult to bridge.

And they are not one-offs. In another case last week, heard by the same magistrate who presided over the dangerous driving case, a notary and former MP - therefore a person in a position of trust - was handed a suspended jail term after admitting to misappropriating the not insignificant sum of €24,465. It was his third such sentence. This and many such outcomes have taken the public by surprise.

This scenario may lead to the accusation, not unreasonably, that one's fate very much depends on which judge or magistrate one appears before.

Of course, it is a basic principle of any court procedure - as well as an important feature of sentencing - that each case is to be judged on its merits and all relevant individual circumstances must be taken into account. This means that what can appear incongruent to us may actually be serving the interests of justice - the principal function of any legal system.

But if the public cannot recognise this - or are not supplied with enough information to help them understand it - the judiciary are landing themselves in hot water.

Because sentencing is not, as some of them may think, purely their domain. It serves a wider public function. We need to be able to see that it acts as a deterrent; that the gravity of the crime has been suitably recognised; that any mitigating circumstances have been taken into account; and that the victims of crime walk away from the experience in a better state of mind than when they walked into it.

The first step to achieving this is to draw up a comprehensive sentencing policy that judges and magistrates are expected to follow - not blindly, because that never works, but in a manner that will lead to a modicum of consistency.

It is clear that use of the suspended sentence, which should be a very particular sentence for very particular circumstances, needs to be reduced. However, to make this possible - and to avoid a situation where our prison becomes unnecessarily overcrowded - the government should present the judiciary with more sentencing options, particularly ones that would benefit the community.

And judges and magistrates need to understand that it is the community they are there to serve.