A 13-year-old boy embroiled in school sex abuse claims will be spared court proceedings following amendments to the criminal code two years ago.
Through legal amendments in 2014, the minimum age below which a person is deemed not mature enough to be held criminally responsible for their actions was raised from nine to 14 years.
According to the allegations, a group of male students, including a 13-year-old, sexually abused a female classmate with their teacher’s blessing at the Ħamrun secondary school. Three students and the teacher were suspended pending the outcome of a police investigation and a magisterial inquiry.
Yesterday evening, the 32-year-old teacher was arrested.
However, in the case of the 13-year-old, investigations cannot lead to any arraignment.
Two years down the line, questions are now being raised on whether this was a step too far, especially at a time when legislators are considering lowering the general election voting age to 16 years. Concerns have been expressed from both a legal perspective and a policing one.
Contacted by this newspaper, lawyer Stefano Filletti, who heads the criminal law department at the University of Malta, subscribed to the view that some aspects of the changes were questionable.
“It may very well be the case that this amendment could have gone one step too far, but yet again, this is a debatable point,” he said.
It is clear that youths in this age bracket have to be shielded from the full force of the law and punishment, but should full impunity be granted?
Dr Filletti said that prior to the 2014 changes, children aged nine to 14 years could be held accountable for their actions if it could be shown that they had acted with “mischievous discretion”. This provision now applies to youths aged 14 to 16.
The law did not require full adult capacity for responsibility, and given their young age, punishment was heavily mitigated, Dr Filletti said.
“In today’s society, when amendments are being pushed to reduce the age of consent and the right to vote, can it be said that children aged between nine and 14 do not possess any form of basic awareness to know that what they are doing is right or wrong?” he questioned.
“Whereas it is clear that youths in this age bracket have to be shielded from the full force of the law and punishment, should full impunity for their actions be granted?” he asked.
Criminal lawyer Joe Giglio was more critical of the change. “Considering the fact that legislators are mulling on the possibility of giving 16-year-olds the right to vote, that they can get married and make commercial transactions, I think this was a step too far. Probably raising this exemption from nine to 12 would have made more sense,” he said.
Criminal lawyer Arthur Azzopardi believes the minimum age of criminal responsibility should have been left at nine years. He said there was no European standard, with some countries raising the age, as in Malta’s case, while others went in the opposite direction with a downward revision.
“In this day and age, youths are much smarter and cunning. This trend is reflected in the kind of attitude and behaviour being exhibited by some minors towards police officers, as well as the feedback I receive from victim support organisations,” Dr Azzopardi said.
Police officers who spoke with this newspaper on condition of anonymity complained that the change has rendered them toothless and unable to crack down on abusive behaviour involving minors. “This is especially the case when parents file a report of being physically abused by their own children, only for us to tell them that we can do nothing,” they said.