I refer to a report about a court case in which a man from Gozo plea bargained to have a charge of attempted murder reduced to grievous bodily harm without intent.

How is it that a person can fire ‘several’ shots at a man walking away from his residence, hit the man three times in the back and not be trying to inflict serious injury to this man? Surely, he was trying to cause a great amount of injury to the person.

The victim managed to reach the ferry terminal with two bullets still in his body, bleeding badly, and were it not for the people who saw him he would have died there. The medical staff at Mater Dei Hospital were brilliant in saving his life and I applaud them for it.

Fast forward nearly 10 years to the court case and the offender walks away with a €465 fine and a two-year suspended sentence. He has his life back while the man he shot still has the two bullets in his body, one so close to his spine that if it moves could cause paralysis.

The judiciary really needs to consider all the facts of cases before them, hear both sides and hand down a sentence that fits the crime.

Why do I know so much about this case? I live in Malta and the person that was shot is my nephew so I think I know the facts.

In my opinion, this was a flawed judgment.