Parliament yesterday approved through all stages a Bill amending the Probation Act.

Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia said that the Bill sought to redress a lacuna because to date, only the Magistrates’ Court could hand down a sentence involving probation.

The amendment was extending the jurisdiction to all courts and tribunals.

The concept of probation was to give a second chance to someone who had been found guilty, instead of sending him to prison.

Society was giving the person time to redeem himself if he did not commit another crime within the stipulated time.

But if the person breached the probation and was found guilty of a second crime, he would have to answer for both crimes.

Dr Mallia said that the Probation of Offenders Act had come into force in 1957 and had been polished over the years, now including the concepts of community service, probation and suspended sentence.

These services were all important for the administration of justice, especially because one always had to keep in mind that everyone could make mistakes.

However, society had to ensure the mistake was not repeated. The offender should be made to realise life out of prison was better than being locked up, and there was nothing more noble than earning an honest living through work.

There were cases, particularly when the perpetrators were very young or when were first-time offenders, where the defence lawyer could ask for a pre-sentencing report, Dr Mallia said.

In these cases the probation officer would draft the report before the court handed down sentence. It gave more information about the individual and the circumstances of the case, putting the court in a better position to do justice.

Other options open to the court were a social inquiry report, a provisional order of supervision, a community service order, a probation and service order and a suspended sentence.

Compensation to society remained a priority, as it provided the opportunity to make good for the harm done.

Those who broke the law needed to be rehabilitated, and the department was currently following around 1,000 cases of persons who had applied for parole.

One should not forget the victims, he said. Since March 2013 contact had been made between some 389 victims and those who had wronged them. Mediation was another important function of the Probation Department.

Dr Mallia said the idea of the proposed amendment was to ensure that when an individual breached a probation order, no matter which court it had come from, the individual could be summoned. The amendment proposed was minor but significant, he concluded.

Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi said that the Opposition was fully in favour of the amendment because justice without mercy was not justice.

There were cases when a person genuinely changed and left the past behind.

Who could say that with a different upbringing in an environment lacking love, respect and dignity they would not have found themselves in the same situation, he asked.

Dr Azzopardi referred to two people from Malta’s history who had contributed greatly to the legal system.

They had had two philosophies which might seem opposing, but were in fact two sides of the same coin.

Retired Judge Maurice Caruana Curran, in a prosecuting role, would often say that justice must be done according to the law, while the late Guido de Marco had been known to say that this was true but the law must be applied justly.  Dr Azzopardi said a sense of humanity in the process was essential.

Probation, when implemented as it should be, included both philosophies.

Many changed their path when for the first time they came across discipline in their lives, in the form of their probation officers.

On this Bill the government had the Opposition’s full support to send the message that any breach of probation had its consequences.