There was an incorrect perception that only a small amount of cases were punished through imprisonment, Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament yesterday. Statistics showed that 80 per cent of those accused before the criminal courts had been given prison sentences and the number of inmates at Corradino Correctional Facility had increased to 560.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Probation Amendment Bill, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the proposed amendments had a clear message: probation was a programme of reform and if the offender failed to abide by the conditions imposed, the necessary action would be taken.

The Bill seeks to transpose the provisions of an EU Council Framework Decision on the application of the principal of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions, with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions into the laws of Malta. It also introduces further amendments to the Probation Act.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he believed that probation orders were a useful tool in the reform of perpetrators. Probation officers were "legal guardian angels" appointed to guide perpetrators in their reform.

Statistics show that there were 351 new probation cases in 2008 and 372 in 2009. This increase, which had led to a greater workload for probation officers, necessitated amendments in the legislation and the probation system to ensure that the same level of surveillance was provided to those placed under a probation order.

The minister said the majority of perpetrators placed under a probation order were those found guilty of theft.

Of 264 persons placed on probation in 2009, 154 had been found guilty of theft, 22 of drug trafficking, 43 of grievous injury, three of sexual abuse, 15 of use of illegal substances, 15 of fraud, 43 of grievous injury and seven of breaking public order. Probation orders had been meted out to more persons in the 25-29 age-group than in any other. There was no village or town in which there were no persons under a probation order.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said probation was one of the oldest mechanisms provided in Maltese law to reform perpetrators. Statistics clearly showed this to be a good tool.

The introduction of community service orders together with probation orders in 2003 had provided a mechanism in which the perpetrator was provided with the opportunity to understand the gravity of his actions and the damage that he had caused to victims and society.

The imposition of a community service order together with a probation order, rather than having the latter tied with a term of imprisonment, had proved to be effective. Of those given a community service order, 48 per cent had been placed with local councils while 52 per cent had been placed with NGOs.

In 2003 this mechanism had been introduced with caution, and a court was only allowed to subject an offender to community service if the probation officer had presented a positive written opinion in this regard.

The minister said that the amendments being moved would allow a court to do away with the written report of the probation officer and to seek a verbal opinion from the officer where the court deemed this appropriate. Such verbal opinion would be recorded in the acts of the proceedings.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that the use of community service orders ought to be increased, because it was a system which reformed the offender by making him acknowledge the wrong he had done. In 2009, only two cases had been given a community service order.

The Bill proposed that a community service order be imposed for a maximum of 480 hours, rather than the current 240. This would allow the court to provide that punishment which it considered fit in the circumstances. Dr Mifsud Bonnici suggested that with the community service order, a snatch-and-grab perpetrator would be sent to do community work by undertaking errands and assisting the victim of the crime.

In the event that offenders did not abide with the conditions of the probation order or the guidance of the probation officer, the latter was to present a report to the court. Due to the different workload of magistrates, these reports were not determined within a similar timeframe.

The Bill proposed that these reports were to be presented before the Criminal Court and not the court that would have ordered the probation. There should be better streamlining in such cases.

The amendments would provide for the appointment of a probation officer to the offender travelling abroad, in their country of destination.