Boy, 17, gets suspended sentence for injuring three men in Paceville stabbing

A 17-year-old boy was handed a suspended sentence for his role in a fight in Paceville in which three UK nationals were stabbed in what the prosecution had described as a “deliberate” attack.

The 17-year-old Birkirkara youth had admitted to the charges of grievously injuring the three men with a sharp and pointed instrument, accidental affray, causing wilful damage to third-party property and breaching the public peace on May 5.

The teenager was arraigned along with two others, an 18-year-old salesman from St Paul's Bay who pleaded guilty in his arraignment, and an 18-year-old unemployed man from Msida, who pleaded not guilty to the charges.

He was granted bail and placed under a temporary supervision order until the pre-sentencing report was drawn up by the probation officer.

The Juvenile Court, in its considerations on punishment, took into account the teenager’s early admission and his clean criminal record prior to the incident.

It also took into consideration the charges brought against the teenager and his age, which would mitigate the punishment meted out by the court.

The court then analysed the pre-sentencing report, which mentioned that the teenager has no other criminal cases pending against him and has since found a job. His father and sister described him as a good-hearted, altruistic individual. His sister also told the probation officer that her brother needs guidance in his life to help him decide on how to act in certain situations.

In his care plan, the probation officer noted that the teenager has the support of his family and went on to recommend effective imprisonment.

During submissions on punishment, the prosecution strongly argued for a suspended sentence instead of an effective prison term, while the defence argued for a probation order and community service.

The court noted that from the pre-sentencing report, there were several encouraging aspects, including the fact that the teenager had no addictions and his urine tests came out clean.

It remarked that it was perplexed by the probation officer’s recommendation for an effective imprisonment given the positive factors listed in the same report, and concluded that this was only recommended in view of the fact that the teenager was admitting to causing grievous injuries using a pointed instrument.

It held that this was a far cry from the restorative justice principle, which is at the heart of the Juvenile Court, and said that while the court has to do justice with the victims, it requires a stronger basis on which to uphold the probation officer’s recommendation.

The court also noted that the report lacked evidence for it to jail him and, to the contrary, the teenager had taken positive steps to put his life back on track.

It held that an effective prison term would undermine the positive development.

The court handed the 17-year-old a two-year jail term, suspended for four years. It imposed a four-year supervision order on the teenager and a three-year restraining order in favour of the three victims.

Magistrate Abigail Critien delivered judgment on Thursday.

AG lawyers Jurgen Dalli and Miryea Mifsud prosecuted, assisted by police inspectors Jonathan Cassar and Nico Zarb.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Adreana Zammit appeared for the 17-year-old.