An early admission to domestic threats can earn probation

The Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a court of criminal judicature on 30 December 2025 placed a man on probation for three years after he admitted threatening and insulting his wife. Magistrate Noel Bartolo also issued a restraining order and a treatment order, and fined him €250. The court refused the prosecution's request for expert costs because no evidence of them was produced.

The facts

The police charged F.A. with five counts arising from one evening in December 2025. The first charge was that he caused his wife to fear that violence would be used against her or her relatives. It was aggravated because the offence was against a spouse and violence was used, under articles 251(3), 251H(a)(f) and 251HA of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta).

He was also charged with misusing an electronic communications network or device to threaten her, under article 49(a)(b)(c) of the Electronic Communications (Regulation) Act (Chapter 399 of the Laws of Malta). Further charges covered insults or threats, and rushing at her to insult, annoy or hurt her, under article 339(1)(e) and (d) of the Criminal Code. The last charge was that he was a recidivist under articles 49 and 50.

The prosecution asked for a protection order during the case and a treatment order under article 412D. It also asked the court to apply articles 382A and 383 and to order expert costs if he was found guilty.

At the hearing he admitted all the charges. The court gave him time to reconsider and to consult his lawyer again, and he confirmed the admission. The prosecution submitted that he needed help and that the sentence should take the form of probation, with treatment and restraining orders. The defence and the injured party agreed.

What the court held

The court held that the admission proved the charges to the standard the law requires. In fixing the sentence, it weighed the nature of the offences and how they happened, his early admission and his criminal record. It also took into account the prosecution's position that he needed help and that probation was the right sentence.

The court found him guilty of all the charges. Applying article 7 of the Probation Act (Chapter 446 of the Laws of Malta), it placed him on probation for three years under conditions set in a separate order. It fined him €250, payable at €50 a month.

Under article 382A of the Criminal Code, the court issued a restraining order in favour of his wife. It also issued a treatment order, as the prosecution had requested, with conditions annexed to the judgment. As article 7(7) of Chapter 446 requires, the court explained to him in ordinary words what the sentence meant and what would happen if he offended again within three years or broke the orders.

The prosecution had asked for an order that he pay the costs of experts under article 533 of the Criminal Code. The court refused the request “stante li ma ngabet ebda prova in rigward” (since no evidence was brought on the point).

The court ordered that a copy of the probation order go at once to the Director of Probation and Parole Services, who would assign a probation officer to supervise him. It banned publication of the names of the accused and of the parties, to protect the identity of the children. Under article 392A it ordered that the Attorney General have access to the record.

Why it matters

Where the accused admits early and the prosecution itself asks for probation, the Court of Magistrates may combine probation with restraining and treatment orders, even in an aggravated domestic case that includes a recidivism charge. A request for expert costs under article 533 fails if no proof of those costs is brought.

Where it sits

The Probation Act lets a court, instead of imposing punishment, place an offender under the supervision of a probation officer for a set period and under conditions. Articles 382A and 412D of the Criminal Code add restraining and treatment orders, which protect the victim and address the causes of offending. Articles 49 and 50 on recidivism allow a heavier sentence, but here a finding of recidivism did not prevent a probation order.

Article 533 lets the court order a convicted person to pay the costs of experts appointed in the proceedings. The court treated that order as one that needs a factual basis in the record.

The judgment names no earlier case. The court decided on the articles alone.

Source

Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature, 1118/2025, 30 December 2025.