Sentence the parties propose does not bind the court
The Court of Magistrates gave a suspended sentence with supervision, treatment and restraining orders to a woman who admitted domestic violence against two relatives, holding that the parties' proposal did not bind it. Relevant to lawyers in summary domestic violence cases.
In Il-Pulizija vs O., the Court of Magistrates (Malta), sitting as a Court of Criminal Judicature, on 5 August 2026 convicted a woman of domestic violence offences against two older relatives on her own admission.
Magistrate Abigail Critien held that the sentence the parties proposed did not bind the court, which could have imposed effective imprisonment. She chose a suspended term with supervision, treatment and restraining orders aimed at the drug use that the court found had led to the case.
The facts
O. faced six charges covering the period up to 1 July 2026: psychological violence and coercion, causing fear of violence, harassment, attacking one relative, and insults and threats. The prosecution asked for a protection order under article 412C of the Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta) and for orders under articles 382A to 385.
The court, with a different magistrate presiding, banned publication of the names of the injured parties and of the accused. The Attorney General consented to summary proceedings under article 370(4). One injured party declared that he would not testify against his relative and asked the court to apply article 543(e).
The court refused at that stage, because it could not yet hear the other injured party and there were two. O. then admitted all the charges.
What the court held
The magistrate warned O. in the most solemn manner of the legal consequences of her admission and gave her time to consult her lawyer and retract it. O. confirmed the admission.
Applying article 392A(3), the court found no good reason to doubt her guilt. The prosecution treated the second and third charges as alternatives and kept to the second, so the court took no further cognisance of the third.
In weighing punishment, the court listed its factors. The admission came early, before the injured parties testified, and it was free and unconditional. The court also considered her criminal record and the nature of the charges, which fall within the definitions of domestic violence and of family in article 2 of Chapter 581 of the Laws of Malta.
It noted the prosecution's position on the alternative charges and the parties' joint suggestion of a suspended sentence with treatment and restraining orders.
The magistrate held that the suggestion did not tie her hands. The court said it “m’hija marbuta bl-ebda mod li teroga dik il-piena” (is in no way bound to impose that penalty), and that in other circumstances it could be far more onerous, including effective imprisonment. It pointed to the nature of the charges and to the fact that the conduct took place over a period of time.
Still, it weighed the early admission and the wish of both injured parties that O. should not go to prison. It held that domestic violence proceedings call for a balance of “l-aspett ġudizzjarju mal-aspett uman” (the judicial aspect with the human aspect), and that the sentence should carry a rehabilitative element while reflecting the gravity of the charges.
The court found O. guilty under provisions including articles 202(h)(iii), 222(1)(a), 251A, 251B and 339(1)(d) and (e). It imposed two years' imprisonment, suspended for four years under article 28A(1). It added a supervision order under article 28G for the same four years, with a probation officer reporting in writing every three months.
It placed O. under a treatment order under article 412D for five years and issued a restraining order under article 382A for three years in favour of both injured parties. It made no order for expert costs, since no experts were appointed and no damage was quantified.
Why it matters
Parties who agree on a sentence in summary domestic violence proceedings should not treat the proposal as settled, because the court can go higher, up to effective prison. An early admission and the wishes of the injured parties can still move the court towards a rehabilitative sentence. Where addiction lies behind the offending, supervision and treatment orders can sit alongside a suspended term.
Where it sits
A guilty plea before the Court of Magistrates runs through article 392A: the court warns the accused, allows time to retract and passes sentence unless there is good reason to doubt guilt. The reduction in punishment for an early admission is well established, and the magistrate relied on the judgments that set it out.
She cited the Criminal Court (24 February 1997), the Court of Criminal Appeal (17 July 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeal (13 September 2024, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera), the Criminal Court (26 June 2024, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera) and the Court of Magistrates (6 May 2024, Magistrate Elaine Rizzo). Together they explain that an early admission saves the court time, resources and costs, and so earns a reduction.
The judgment treats the parties' proposal as one factor among several, not as a limit on the court.
Source
Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature, 544/2026, 5 August 2026: 544/2026