A man who 13 years ago murdered his estranged partner by stabbing her some 49 times before the eyes of their seven-year old daughter, will have the chance to apply for a review of his life sentence before the Parole Board in 17 years' time. 

In a case that had shocked the country back in 2004, David Norbert Schembri, 41, from Sliema had forced his way into the apartment in San Ġwann where Josette Scicluna was preparing dinner for the couple’s young daughter.

Armed with a revolver, the man had first fired at the lock of the front door and then, upon barging into the flat,  grabbed a knife and repeatedly stabbed the woman to death.

Later, he walked out of the apartment and within earshot of a neighbour had shouted; “Now call the police!”

Following the frenzied attack, the man turned himself in at the police station.

Five years later, in 2009, his trial by jury had ended with a guilty verdict and a sentence of life imprisonment with three periods of solitary confinement. 

READ: Witnesses describe 2004 murder

READ: Victim 'suffered extreme trauma'

I'm still alive, murderer tells victim's family

The Criminal Court of Appeal, in its Superior Jurisdiction, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Joseph R. Micallef together with Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro and Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon in appeal proceedings, turned down the arguments of the appellant, pointing out that the punishment was fair and fell within reasonable and expected limits.

However, in line with a series of judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and followed by a recent pronouncement by the Maltese Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeal took note of the argument put forward by the appellant that life imprisonment breached his right to protection against inhuman and degrading punishment.

Since there is currently no statutory provision tailored to meet such a situation, the possible alteration of a life sentence is entrusted solely to administrative or executive discretion, the court observed.

“Since, to date there do not appear to have been any legal criteria drafted to cater for a situation like this where there is the revision of punishment given to the accused, this court deems it fit to make a provision to address this shortcoming in the law,” declared the court.

For this purpose, while rejecting the appeal and confirming the sentence in its entirety, the court declared that upon the lapse of 25 years from the date of the  judgment, the appellant would have the right to benefit from the legal mechanism allowing a review of punishment before the Parole Board.

Failing this, he could benefit from measures and criteria established from time to time by the Constitutional Court that would permit him to request a revision or reduction of punishment if the right circumstances permitted this, the court concluded.