Whenever a controversial sentence is meted out by our law courts I usually prefer not to comment before first reading the court's case transcript. Unfortunately, the transcript for the 'Amy case' was not uploaded on the court's site even after I requested it.

The reason could be the anonymous nature of the case, or just an administrative one. The site openly and unashamedly states that "if the Court official fails to save the judgement for whatever reason, as a consequence this judgement will not be visible on the net."

The mind boggles, but this case is too important to let go, so here's what I think based on the various news reports that were published about this story.

For the benefit of those who have been living under a rock, the Amy case is about two teenage boys who last January assaulted two teenage girls in a public garden in Hamrun. Wanting to remain anonymous, one of the girls was nicknamed Amy – hence 'The Amy Case.'

The girls claimed that the boys were in a house looking out of a window. When they saw Amy and her girlfriend kissing under a gazebo outside, words were exchanged, the boys ran out of the house, and Amy ended up with a broken nose.

Yesterday the court found the boys guilty of assault and fined them €500, but there was not enough evidence to show that this was in fact a hate crime, or that the girls were a lesbian couple.

The first comment that was left under the news story that was carried by this paper, read '...if anyone wants to do any immoral things, please do them at your home."

Funny isn't it? This smartass considers two girls kissing in public immoral but, he deems it fit to publically rape the English language on a national newspaper.

But I digress.

Here's why I think that the sentence boils down to less than a slap on the wrist, why the boys are singing all the way to the bank, and why we're likely to have created a couple of future wife beaters:

Judging from the pictures of Amy's bloody face after the assault, and the fact that she officially suffered from a broken nose, I'd assume that the charge was at least that of assault with slight bodily harm.

According to Section 221. (1) of Malta's Criminal Code - bodily harm which is deemed to be slight, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or with a fine.

Whilst I couldn't find the limit on the fine that can be imposed, if it is in fact a meagre €500, then the Magistrate should have seriously considered sending the lovely boys for a weekend stay at the Korradino guest resort, courtesy of all the women in Malta, and the boys' future wives and daughters.

During the court hearing, a witness testified that Amy (described as a petite teenager) had been head-butted by one of the aggressors who also declared that he would not shirk from assaulting women. "...If someone challenges you to a fight, wouldn't you go?" he told the court.

Section 222A. (1) of the Criminal Code, says that "punishments for slight bodily harm shall be increased by one or two degrees when the harm is committed on a person who has attained the age of sixty years or on a person suffering from a degree of physical or mental infirmity in consequence of which he is unable to defend himself adequately."

Now as much as I'm all for gender equality, there's no way of denying that generally speaking boys are stronger than girls, especially when the boy is 19 and the girl is 16. So, to me, a boy attacking a girl is tantamount to attacking someone who suffers from a degree of physical infirmity and is unable to defend themselves adequately.

And finally, whether the girls were in fact a lesbian couple and, whether this could have been proven to be a hate crime or not, should not have had any influence on the sentence meted out.

Firstly because thanks to our laidback legislators homophobic hate crimes are not yet catered for in our criminal code.

And secondly because, upon mere verbal provocation, after being called (shock horror) a "pufta', the boy left his house, took to the streets, and brutally attacked a girl in a public space.

If this is doesn't constitute a homophobic hate crime, I don't know what does!