One act of neglecting dogs is one offence, not four

The Court of Criminal Appeal, sitting in its inferior jurisdiction, decided Il-Pulizija vs V.A. on 22 May 2026. Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras held that four animal welfare charges arising from the same neglect of dogs made up a single offence. She acquitted the appellant of failing to notify a transfer of dogs and removed a ban on keeping dogs that the law did not allow when the offence was committed.

The facts

The appellant kept a large number of dogs at his home. Officials from the animal welfare department inspected the premises several times after complaints from neighbours and gave him warnings. The situation was not put right, and the police charged him.

Four charges alleged breaches of article 8(2), (3) and (4) of the Animal Welfare Act (Chapter 439 of the Laws of Malta) and of the regulations on keeping dogs (S.L. 439.21). A fifth charge alleged that he did not tell the Director within seven days that a dog had died or been transferred.

On 13 March 2024 the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature found him guilty on all five charges. It imposed two years' imprisonment suspended for four years and a fine of €21,600 payable at €600 a month. It also banned him from keeping a dog or applying for a dog licence for 25 years.

What the court held

On the fifth charge, the court read regulation 5(10) of the regulations on the electronic identification of dogs (S.L. 437.101). Having checked the English text, it held that the duty to notify a transfer falls on the owner or keeper who transfers the dog, not on the person who receives it.

Some of the dogs had been registered to a family member who had died. The court reasoned: "Għal din il-Qorti, il-kelma ‘trasferiment’ ma tistax tinkludi fiha trasferiment post mortem (eż. meta kelb jintiret mill-eredi tad-decujus) għaliex il-liġi tpoġġi l-obbligu tan-notifika fuq it-trasferent." (For this court, the word 'transfer' cannot include a transfer after death, for example when heirs inherit a dog, because the law places the duty to notify on the transferor.)

The same reasoning covered dogs registered to third parties. The court noted that the appellant may have needed a licence for every dog he held, but he was not charged with that and could not be convicted of it.

The ban fell with the fifth charge. The court held that the ban in regulation 5(9) is available only on a conviction under those regulations. The power in article 45(1) of the Animal Welfare Act came with Act XXXIX of 2021, after the offence, and the court held it could not impose a penalty that did not exist when the offence was committed.

On the first four charges, the court applied formal concurrence of offences (konkors formali): one act done with one criminal intent that breaches several provisions is one offence. It found that all four charges described one legal fact, the improper treatment of the dogs.

The breaches were inseparable, the court said: "malli kelb ma jinżammx fi spazju ta’ dimensjonijiet xierqa awtomatikament ikunu nkisru l-erba’ dispożizzjonijiet" (as soon as a dog is not kept in a space of proper dimensions, the four provisions are automatically breached). The penalty therefore stays within the one range in article 45(1), without the increases article 17 of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9) allows for several offences.

The court rejected the challenge to the evidence. The first court could reasonably find the conditions unsuitable: dirt, cramped cages, rusty chicken wire and matted coats. The smallest cage held two dogs in 1.65 square metres, against the 6 square metres the regulations require.

On penalty, the court found the suspended sentence and fine were not manifestly excessive, because the appellant's remedial steps came late. It allowed the appeal in part, acquitted him of the fifth charge, struck out the 25-year ban and reduced the fine to €21,450.

Why it matters

Prosecutors who charge the same neglect under several subarticles of article 8 should expect one offence and one penalty range, not four. Defence lawyers should check who carries a statutory notice duty before accepting a charge of failing to give it.

A court cannot impose a dog ban under article 45(1) for conduct that predates Act XXXIX of 2021.

Where it sits

Formal concurrence is not written into the Criminal Code, but the court said Maltese courts have applied it for almost 200 years. It differs from article 17(h), which treats offences as one only for punishment while keeping them distinct. Formal concurrence applies where the offences are naturally or legally inseparable.

For the doctrine, the court relied on its own judgments of 6 January 2005 and 11 January 1994. On review of the evidence it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) of 21 April 2005. On appeals against penalty it cited the Court of Criminal Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) of 25 August 2005 and the Court of Criminal Appeal of 22 October 2019.

The ruling on the ban applies the rule that no one may receive a penalty the law did not provide when the offence was committed.

Source

Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), 618/2019/2, 22 May 2026.