Man accused over Qormi murder

C Bugeja

Sep 19th 2008, 19:10

First of all condolences go for the deceased. It must have been a terrible experience for his family and we're all terribly sorry about him.

About this legal technicality, as a law student, even if the shooter admitted he did shoot the deceased he did not admit he was guilty of wilful homicide, which is quite different than murder. By going to the police the accused admitted himself of shooting the other, but in no way it means he admitted of unjustly or unexcusably shooting him. That is, his lawyer could be preparing a defence where although the shooting happened, it could either be justified or excused (e.g. self defence, insanity, duress, etc). I am not saying that is the case of course, but a guilty plead is the admittance of a perfect wilful murder while a non-guilty plead implies some sort of defence on justifiable or excusable grounds.

Paul Barrett

Sep 17th 2008, 19:50

Any death is extremely sad and my condolences to Mr Scicluna's family and friends.

On a different note, having watched tons of television and therefore a total non-expert, I seem to remember that a Court cannot accept a guilty plea in the case of murder and the Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Etienne Fenech

Sep 17th 2008, 18:37

I am really shocked with the news of the sudden death of Martin Scicluna, and I would like to send my deepest sympathy to his wife and two children. I can't tell him break a leg any longer before each race, but I say Martin thanks and I will pray for you.

Noel Cutajar

Sep 17th 2008, 17:43

Please note that our courts are divided according to certain jurisdictions as dictated by law. A Magistrate cannot hand down a sentence if punishable by imprisonment of more than 10 years. In this case, the role of the magistrate is to collect evidence. Such evidence will then be presented to a Trial by Jury and only then the Judge can hand down a sentence. In theory all cases above 6 months can go to a trial by jury. In this case there are procedures to follow and a person can choose to opt for a trial by jury or not (if more than 6 months but less than 10 years). Above 10 years, he has no choice. In cases of drugs, the Attorney General can decide whether to go to a trial by jury or not. As to pleading guilty or not, the suggestion is to plead not guilty. The reasons being various as one can plead insanity, provocation, force majeur and various other reasons. This is the role of the lawyer to dig up all situations in virtue of legality and justice.

martin saliba

Sep 17th 2008, 16:47

Guilty of killing and guilty of murder are totaly different from each other. You might be excused for killing but not for murder. For the record i know practically nothing about criminal law.

Michael Attard

Sep 17th 2008, 15:18

Graham, nobody is offending the dead's memory! A simple conversation is going on.

graham cassar

Sep 17th 2008, 15:03

Shut Up All of You!!!!

A good friend of mine has been shot dead in cold blood..............and you are quibbling about a legal technicality!!!!!!

Show some respect to the dead. The person who killed Martin has to be proven guilty by Maltese law, so please leave the legal system take its course.

Martin RIP my friend.

E Serracino Inglott

Sep 17th 2008, 14:22

Giving yourself up with regards to the murder of a person, can go together with pleading not guilty. This has to do with the definition of "guilt" in judicial proceedings. Someone who kills an attacker, has indeed killed the person, but is not guilty of committing murder/manslaughter because the person acted in self-defense. There are several judicial grounds on which a person can be considered "not guilty" of the committed facts. Ultimately a judge will rule on whether (1) it is proven that the person committed the facts that he accused of, (2) whether he can be considered guilty of the facts that he committed or not and (3) the corresponding sentence (if any).

Joe Cordina

Sep 17th 2008, 14:15

In a case as serious as this, the accused always pleads not guilty. If he where to plead guilty the compilation of evidence would still take its normal course as if he pleaded not guilty. But then the defence would still need to put its case for consideration as in cases like this there would always be some mitigating factor. As it stands a person who had committed a homicide would have his reasons justifiable or not. In such cases it is vary rare for the accused to be a relapsing criminal it is more likely that it would be his first offence

Victor J. Vella

Sep 17th 2008, 14:07

What is worrying is when best friends become worst enemies. We used to watch these type of stories on the TV, not any more I am afraid. And the best part is when one realises that his or her best friend played him or her. I do not mean on this particular case but when friendship is used in all cases that is very bad.

Manuel Camilleri

Sep 17th 2008, 13:26

Obviously his lawyer recommended he plead not guilty as he must have a good defence case. If at trial he will be found not guilty by the jury on that defence case than he will go free irrespective of having owned up in the first place.

Justice is blind ( to those who deliver it ) !

victor vella

Sep 17th 2008, 12:57

Hold on please have any of you heard the charges brought? He pleads according to the charges if for example he shot in self defence and the charge is willfull murder then he would certainly claim not guilty.Does anyone remember the case were the victim was blackmailing the person who killed him? So it is better for the purpetrator to have the case heard in front of a jury.

Henry J Bonett

Sep 17th 2008, 12:39

It is a aprocess of law. It is not enough that one says one is guilty. It has to be proven just the same. And thank God for that.

P.Borg

Sep 17th 2008, 12:36

self defence, insanity, who knows what a good lawyer can come up with?

E J Gatt

Sep 17th 2008, 12:23

@ Alexander Grmia

Obviously I am not referring to this particular case and also I am not a lawyer so a legal person would be able to answer you more correctly.

But

If an accused plead guilty the judge would pass immediately to sentencing while if an accused plead not guilty that a trial (mostly by jury) would be held and there the accused can give his side of the story etc.

Philip B Cortis

Sep 17th 2008, 12:17

I’m not involved in any way with the Law, but my understanding is that when the court hands down the sentence, it will take in consideration a number of factors. Let’s assume the below 3 cases

A salesperson faces a robbery and in pure self defense and absolutely without intention he somehow kills the thieve.

A killer kills his partner while the partner is in an unfaithful act and the killing is done on the spot without much thinking.

A killer kills his unfaithful partner and such is done with weeks / months of planning

Shall the court give the same sentence to the 3 above cases? So, in this case while Mr Mercieca admits the actual act he still has to present the reasons for his actions.

Personally I would free the first one. The second and the third, I will both give them a sentence but the third one is to be much more sever since he actually had the time to plan it and during that time he should have realized that killing is not the solution.

Alexander Grima

Sep 17th 2008, 12:02

Mr Micallef, I do not want to go into the merits of the plea either; quite frankly, it is not my concern. However, it is as that “technical issue” which I fail to miserably understand. As I understand, the plea prior to a trial carries an amount of weight and can be detrimental to the sentence given, should the accused be found guilty as charged. But here we have a person who has already co-operated by admitting his crime, so why is he asked to plead guilty or not before the trial begins?!

Angelo Micallef

Sep 17th 2008, 11:43

@Alexander Grima- Without entering the merits of the case as doing so would be not only presumptuous but it would be downright incorrect the matter of having given himself up and then pleading not guilty is simply a technical issue of the law whereby when it comes to the actual plea in the court such is made independently of whether one would have given himself up or not. This naturally does not mean that I agree and/or disagree with this plea for as I said I shall not enter the merits of the case.

Alexander Grima

Sep 17th 2008, 11:32

So a guy gives himself up to the police for committing a murder, and then pleads not guilty for having carried out the same murder as accused!!! Would someone care explain please as I am totally befuddled.