A non-unanimous jury does not rule out life imprisonment

The Court of Criminal Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) on 21 January 2026 dismissed the appeals of four men sentenced to life imprisonment for the wilful homicide of a lawyer in 2015, or for complicity in it. The court, composed of Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Madam Justice Doreen Clarke and Madam Justice Josette Demicoli, held that a jury verdict of seven votes to two does not stop a court from imposing life imprisonment. In Ir-Repubblika Ta' Malta vs A.A., it confirmed both the verdicts and the sentences.

The facts

The Attorney General indicted four men in one bill of indictment. The prosecution case was that A.A. and R.A. commissioned the killing because the lawyer was due to collect a large sum of money from A.A. It alleged that G.D. and J.V. carried it out with a third man, who later testified for the prosecution.

The jury in the Criminal Court found G.D. and J.V. guilty of wilful homicide and related weapons offences, and A.A. guilty of complicity, each by seven votes to two. R.A. was acquitted on that count. He and J.V. were found guilty, on other counts of the same indictment, of complicity in a second homicide, by eight votes to one.

The Criminal Court refused to use its discretion under article 492(2) of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta) and sentenced each man to life imprisonment. All four appealed.

What the court held

G.D. argued that the witness who took part in the killing could not be believed. The court held that a witness may be believed on one point and not on another, and rejected the submission that corroboration beyond his evidence was needed. It found his account consistent on the plan, the day and the route, and borne out by the CCTV timings.

The defence also argued that the shots were fired from a height. The court held that a defence which puts forward its own version must prove it on a balance of probabilities. The ballistic and medical reports did not support that version.

On sentence, the court started from article 492(2), which allows a term of not less than 12 years instead of life imprisonment when the jury's votes are not unanimous. It held that "il-fatt li l-verdett ma kienx wieħed unanimu ma jxekkilx lill-Qorti li tikkundanna lill-appellant għall-piena ta' għomor il-ħabs" (the fact that the verdict was not unanimous does not prevent the court from sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment).

The court described the seven-to-two verdict as "vot b'saħħtu ħafna" (a very strong vote). It adopted the view of the Criminal Court (13 October 2021) that the closer a homicide verdict is to unanimity, the less likely a court is to depart from the punishment the law fixes.

A.A. argued that, as the man who commissioned the killing rather than the man who fired, he deserved less. The court called the argument fallacious and relied on article 43 of the Criminal Code: "Barra minn meta l-liġi tgħid xort'oħra, il-kompliċi f'delitt jeħel il-piena stabbilita għall-awtur" (save where the law provides otherwise, an accomplice in a crime is liable to the punishment established for the principal).

The court rejected the arguments based on disparity. Other offenders had received 40 years under a plea agreement with the Attorney General, but that was a bargain and the appellants' position was different. The acquittal of a co-accused on one count had no bearing on another's sentence, because each accused and each count is judged separately.

J.V. relied on his almost clean record. The court held that this was irrelevant, since he was convicted of two premeditated homicides, one as an accomplice, and showed no remorse. It applied the Criminal Court (4 October 2007), which held that the discretion under article 492(2) must be used with great care and depends on the gravity and number of the offences.

G.D. argued that a seven-to-two verdict should not be treated like a unanimous one, and pointed to a lighter sentence in another homicide case. The court found the facts of that case entirely different, and held that his sentence was within the law and deserved.

The court concluded that none of the sentences was outside the limits of the law or excessive. It dismissed all four appeals and confirmed the verdicts and the sentences.

Why it matters

A non-unanimous verdict opens the door to a lower term under article 492(2), but it gives no right to one. Defence lawyers seeking the 12-year floor must show why the case deserves the discretion. The vote count, a clean record or the role of an accomplice will not carry the argument alone where the killing was premeditated.

Where it sits

Article 211 of the Criminal Code fixes life imprisonment for wilful homicide. Article 492(2) tempers that rule where the jury is not unanimous, and article 43 extends the principal's punishment to the accomplice. The court read the three together.

On review of sentence, the court followed settled case law that it does not disturb the first court's discretion unless the sentence falls outside the limits of the law or is excessive. It also relied on the English approach, cited through Blackstone's Criminal Practice, that disparity with a co-offender's sentence is not in itself a ground of appeal.

On article 492(2), the court applied the Criminal Court (13 October 2021) and the Criminal Court (4 October 2007). An appellant also cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (28 November 2006) on the reformative aim of punishment. The court held that this aim did not outweigh the gravity of the offences.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction), Ir-Repubblika Ta' Malta vs A.A., 21 January 2026: 27/2022/2