Judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers tend to view plea bargaining as a necessary tool in the administration of criminal justice, according to Justice Minister Chris Said.

Plea bargaining, introduced in Maltese courts in 2002, allows the defence and prosecution to agree on a suggested sentence, in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty.

Any sentence is subject to the approval of the presiding judge or magistrate.

This has been criticised by legal observers, who argue the deterrent effect of punishment is reduced by plea bargaining, Dr Said noted during a seminar on plea bargaining organised by the Maltese Judicial Studies Committee and the École Nationale de la Magistrature of France.

“Some defence lawyers complain of prosecutorial coercion while crime victims, and even the public, at times, complains about the lighter sentences that result from plea bargaining… (But) it (also) provides a shortcut to justice as it is an efficient and expeditious alternative to criminal trials. In certain cases, it can spare victims the trauma or inconvenience of testifying,” he said.

The end result of plea bargaining was highlighted in the media a few weeks ago when a man was jailed for 10 years after he admitted to repeatedly raping his three adolescent daughters.

The judgment drew the ire of the public for being too lenient.

Both jurists and child psychologists defended the court’s decision to uphold the 10-year plea, arguing that it saved huge amounts of time, money and effort, which could then be diverted to other cases. Psychologists pointed to the courtroom trauma the man’s three victims would have been forced to endure had they been made to testify.
During the seminar, Dr Said admitted he was glad to hear that, in February, the Judicial Studies Committee would be holding a two-day seminar on the skills or craft of judging.

It would be about the efficient management of cases, dealing with vulnerable witnesses and people with special needs and assessing credibility.