A sentence below the legal minimum must be raised

The Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) held on 8 April 2026 that a prison term below the legal minimum for a non-consensual act of a sexual nature could not stand, and it increased the sentence. Mr Justice Neville Camilleri upheld the Attorney General's appeal and dismissed the appeal of the man convicted. The court also held that the first court had not used the accused's silence in his police statement against him.

The facts

Il-Pulizija vs M.R. arose from a complaint to the police on 14 December 2023. The complainant said the accused offered a lift and, once the complainant was in the car, touched the complainant's intimate parts while appearing to help with the seatbelt. The complainant left the car at once and reported the incident.

The accused was charged with a non-consensual act of a sexual nature under article 207 of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9), offending public morals under article 209 and sexual harassment. He was also charged with offending during the operative period of a suspended sentence and with recidivism.

On 18 February 2026 the Court of Magistrates (Malta), sitting as a Court of Criminal Judicature, found him guilty of all charges. It imposed three years' imprisonment and a €500 fine, brought a suspended two-year term into effect and issued a three-year restraining order. Both the accused and the Attorney General appealed.

What the court held

The accused argued that the first court held his silence in his police statement against him. The court rejected the argument. The first court had relied on the complainant's credibility, and the appeal court held that “il-fatt determinanti kien il-kredibilita’ tax-xiehda u mhux is-silenzju tal-appellant” (the deciding factor was the credibility of the evidence and not the appellant's silence).

On the evidence, the court applied article 638(2), under which the testimony of one witness, if believed, is full proof. Article 637 leaves credibility to the judge of fact, who weighs demeanour, consistency and corroboration. An appeal court does not disturb that assessment unless no reasonable court could have reached it.

The complainant's account stayed consistent from the first report to cross-examination. The court found the accused's explanation implausible, since he had time to stop and talk before the complainant got in, so nothing urgent called for reaching across. The complainant's immediate exit from the car supported that account, and the court rejected the grounds on the facts.

On sentence, the court held that an appeal court changes a punishment only if it is wrong in principle, manifestly excessive or outside the limits of the law. That rule applies equally to appeals by the Attorney General.

The court held that article 207 carries three to seven years' imprisonment. A mandatory aggravation under article 202(f)(n) raises that by one degree, to between four and eight years. The three years imposed by the first court was therefore below the minimum.

The second and third charges were taken with the first under article 17(b), so the punishment had to exceed the four-year minimum. Any increase for recidivism under articles 49 and 50 was left to the court's discretion. The court found no ground for mitigation, since the offences took place while a suspended sentence was running.

The court replaced the three-year term with four years and three months. With the two years brought into effect, the total became six years and three months, plus the €500 fine, and the rest of the first judgment stayed in force. The court prohibited publication of the complainant's name.

Why it matters

Before sentencing submissions, both sides should work out the range after any mandatory aggravation, not the base range in the article. A first court that stops at the base minimum invites an appeal by the Attorney General. A defence resting on the accused's silence will fail where the first court's reasoning turned on the complainant's credibility.

Where it sits

The case applies three familiar rules: one believed witness is enough, credibility belongs to the judge of fact, and punishment rises by degrees where an aggravation applies. The court cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (29 May 2003) on appellate review of evidence, (9 July 2003) on conflicting evidence and (31 October 2013) on reliance on a single witness.

It also cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (2 September 2025), which followed a judgment of 5 July 2002 on conflicting versions, and (11 July 2002) on circumstantial evidence. On sentence appeals, it relied on the Court of Criminal Appeal (20 December 2022), which cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (Superior) (25 August 2005 and 15 December 2005), and on (24 September 2009) for appeals by the Attorney General.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 8 April 2026, 974/2024/1