In the past, churches and chapels were places of refuge where wrongdoers could seek sanctuary from arrest. This idea had its roots in recorded references in the Old Testament to people seeking sanctuary at the altar of temples. By around the fourth century, the right to sanctuary had become formalised among early Christians. Eventually certain churches also offered a widened area of protection that was extended to areas surrounding the church, demarcated by monuments known as ‘sanctuary stones’ or ‘sanctuary crosses’.

In Greek and Roman societies, all temples to the gods offered harbour to runaway slaves and certain criminals. These early sanctuaries were established under the belief that temples had to be respected.

In medieval England, criminals could escape the death penalty or other violent punishment by retreating to churches and paying a fine. After 40 days, however, these fugitives could be blockaded and starved unless they chose to swear to leave the country for ever, from the nearest port and by the first vessel.

In most countries, sanctuaries were abolished in 1540, and the Church could no longer protect anyone guilty of treason, murder, rape, highway robbery, burglary, arson or sacrilege. English criminals had no official recourse to churches by the end of the 1600s.

Sanctuary law in Malta was an important and delicate matter connected with the police and the administration of justice during early British rule. According to this law, fugitives were immune to arrest after taking refuge in a church.

One of the most interesting and documented cases of sanctuary law was that of Lippu Fenech from Żebbuġ. In July 1691, after committing murder, Fenech took refuge in the chapel of Santa Marija, Ħal Muxi, limits of Żebbuġ. At that time the chapel offered sanctuary to those who had just committed a crime. Fenech’s intentions for remaining in the chapel became known after the victim’s corpse was found. Although the police were sent to arrest him they had specific instructions to execute the arrest warrant if he was found outside the church.

The proclamation that abolished sanctuary.

But Fenech had no intention of leaving the chapel as he was supplied with food by some locals. However, the police remained guarding the place, and in the afternoon of July 26, when Fenech was seen emerging from the chapel door holding a bucket, he was shot at and fatally wounded. Although he managed to re-enter the chapel, Fenech died the next morning.

Sanctuary was also governed by a motu proprio – a document issued by a Pope on his own initiative and personally signed by him – issued by Pope Pius VI on June 25, 1777, to remedy the evil arising from the fact that many wicked and depraved people were often encouraged to commit offences owing to their being in the vicinity of churches where they could find an immediate place of refuge.

In this motu proprio, the Pope limited the right of sanctuary to parish churches and to other churches while the Eucharist was kept, and to some other places. From these places, an offender could not be removed by the secular powers without a previous application having been made to the Bishop or Vicar General.

Many wicked and depraved people were often encouraged to commit offences owing to their being in the vicinity of churches where they could find an immediate place of refuge

The secular officer also had to take an oath to hold the prisoner in the name of the Church and to deliver him if the Bishop decided that he was entitled to the privilege of sanctuary. The Bishop, upon receiving a communication within four months, was to decide within a month whether the prisoner was entitled to this privilege. Only perpetrators of certain grave crimes, namely treason, murder, voluntary bankruptcy, and blackmail, were excluded. More-over, if the Bishop decided against the prisoner, the latter was en-titled to appeal to the Sacred Congregation of Immunities in Rome within two months, in which case the prisoner could not be brought to justice without the delay and expenses of prosecuting the appeal in Rome.

Pope Pius VI.

Towards the end of 1813, after an affray in the countryside, a man sought sanctuary in a church. Sir Thomas Maitland, the newly-appointed Governor, judged this to be a good opportunity to tackle this delicate subject with the ecclesiastical authorities and he directed the fiscal general (attorney-general) to make a formal demand for the man to be handed over to the civil power. This was immediately done and the man was taken out of the church and delivered to the civil authority.

On receiving the man, the usual procedure was followed and the Governor held several communications with the ecclesiastical authorities, but the Bishop declared that it was impossible for him to go beyond the limits laid down in the motu proprio. The Governor also recommended to do away with the appeal to Rome.

During Maitland’s governorship no negotiations were entered with the Holy See about this matter, although a proclamation was issued in 1816 to remedy certain abuses in the exercise of the right of sanctuary. This proclamation laid down that a warrant of arrest could be lawfully executed at any hour, whether by day or night, against any person who, after having taken refuge in the precincts of any church, monastery, or other privileged place, was found outside the limits and consequently out of the protection of such precincts, except on a Sunday or holiday of precetto intero.

A notice outside a chapel indicating that the place had no privilege of sanctuary.

This same matter was dealt again during the governorship of the Marquis of Hastings when Sir John Richardson was appointed to make recommendations to improve the administration of the law in Malta. After dealing in detail with the state of the law relating to sanctuary, Richardson proposed the abolition of the privilege of sanctuary.

Sanctuary in criminal cases was abolished on April 10, 1828, by Governor Frederick Ponsonby, when it was stated that: “Whereas, in consequence of certain privileges or immunities heretofore claimed as belonging to diverse churches and other holy edifices and places in these islands, wicked and profligate men have often been tempted to commit murders, robberies and other atrocious crimes in the hope of escaping punishment by taking refuge in such places; and whereas, although the most sacred duty of every government is to cause justice to be properly administered, yet in the course of such administration a due respect may and ought to be paid to the sanctuary of places dedicated to the service of Almighty God. His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor is therefore pleased hereby to order and declare that, from and after the day of the date of this proclamation, no local privilege, or immunity whatsoever, shall be in any manner available to prevent the due execution of the law in matters criminal.

“Provided nevertheless, and it is further ordered and directed, that in every case, in which any person, male or female, having committed or being suspected to have committed any temporal crime or offence, shall seek or be suspected of seeking refuge in any place heretofore considered as affording sanctuary, it shall be lawful for any officer of the executive police duly authorised to take before a magistrate for examination or otherwise on a criminal charge, any such person then credibly suspected to be in a such place of refuge, as already described, to demand the said suspected fugitive at the outer door or gate of the said place of refuge; and if the suspected fugitive be forthwith given up, the said officer shall not pass within the said outer door or gate; but if the suspected fugitive be not given up on demand, it shall be lawful for the police officer, taking to his aid any other civil or ecclesiastical officer or officers, and if necessary a military force, to enter the said place of refuge and to search for the said suspected fugitive, and then to remove him or her, when found, with the least possible scandal or disturbance.”