Assault on police rules out a suspended sentence

On 1 July 2026 the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided by Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras, rejected an appeal against two years' effective imprisonment and a €15,000 fine imposed for cruelty to cats and an assault on two police officers.

The court held that a sentencing court need not appoint a psychiatrist where the accused pleaded guilty, intent is not in dispute and his need for treatment is already on the record. It also held that article 98A of the Criminal Code rules out a suspended sentence for an offence under article 96.

The facts

The Police charged O.S. under articles 8 and 13 of the Animal Welfare Act (Chapter 439) with killing a domesticated animal and causing animals unnecessary suffering over several months in 2025. They also charged him under articles 95, 96(a), 215, 221 and 338(ee) of the Criminal Code with assaulting, injuring and threatening two police constables on duty and disobeying their orders. Assisted by counsel, he pleaded guilty and later confirmed the plea through an interpreter.

A probation officer's pre-sentencing report recommended a psychiatric assessment, a treatment order, effective imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Magistrates twice refused the defence's request for a psychologist or psychiatrist. After an earlier appeal sent the case back, it passed a fresh sentence on 12 February 2026, adding a forty-year ban on keeping animals, a three-year restraining order in favour of the officers and an eighteen-month treatment order.

What the court held

On the first grievance, the court noted that the appellant challenged only the punishment, not his plea, and never contested his intent. His statement to the police and the pre-sentencing report already showed that he needed psychological help; the first court said so and issued a treatment order under article 412D.

The court held: “Once the appellant’s mens rea in the commission of these crimes was never a bone of contention in these proceedings, the resulting evidence was sufficient for the First Court to proceed to deliver its judgment.” Setting the treatment is for the professionals appointed under the order, not for the court.

It refused the grievance and the fresh request for a psychiatrist made on appeal.

On the second grievance, that the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court applied the settled test: it does not interfere because it would have passed a different sentence, only where the sentence is wrong in principle or outside the appropriate range for that offence and that offender.

The first court had weighed the early plea, with a smaller reduction because the case was strong, the clean record and the appellant's mental health, as well as the facts of the case and the protection of the public.

The law also limited the first court's options. Under article 98A, article 28A does not apply to article 96, so no suspended sentence was available. Article 96(a) carries one to four years' imprisonment and a fine (multa) of €6,000 to €15,000, so a fine could not be avoided.

The fifth to eighth charges arose from the same facts and, under the doctrine of formal concurrence, the lesser offences are absorbed in the most serious. The animal charges formed a continuous offence under article 18, which allows an increase of one or two degrees.

The sentence lay within these limits, and the forty-year ban under the first proviso to article 45(1)(b) of Chapter 439 was not disproportionate. The court rejected the appeal in full.

Why it matters

A defence request for a psychiatric report at sentencing needs a purpose the record does not already serve, such as a live issue of intent. Where any charge falls under article 96, counsel should not ask for a suspended sentence or for no fine: the law excludes both.

Where it sits

The case applies the general part of the Criminal Code on punishment: suspended sentences under article 28A, the continuous offence under article 18, and formal concurrence, where one set of facts breaches several provisions and only the most serious is punished. It also applies the special protection of public officers in articles 95 and 96, which article 98A removes from the reach of article 28A.

On appellate restraint, the court relied on the Court of Criminal Appeal, Superior Jurisdiction (25 August 2005), which adopted the “wrong in principle or manifestly excessive” test from Blackstone's Criminal Practice, and the Court of Criminal Appeal (26 February 2009), which held that the appeal court does not disturb a punishment unless it is manifestly disproportionate or the first court failed to give weight to an aspect of the case bearing on it.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior), 7513/2025/2, 1 July 2026, 7513/2025/2.