A British millionaire car collector, held mainly responsible by the inquiring magistrate for the 2015 horrendous Paqpaqli għall-Istrina crash, has been ordered to make 300 hours of community service with Puttinu Cares in the UK.
The crash left 26 people injured, some critically, when the supercar he was driving swung out of control and plunged into the many spectators. It shocked the country and, as a result, many are likely to question whether the punishment was proportionate to the offence.
The car collector opted to plead guilty seven years after his arraignment to charges that included involuntarily causing grievous bodily harm, which can carry an effective prison sentence. The magisterial inquiry had noted that he was not a professional driver and concluded that the crash was a result of excessive speed and lack of handling techniques and corrective measures.
Still, the magistrate hearing the case felt that imprisonment was not appropriate and, instead, issued a community service order. For the record, another accused also pleaded guilty and was given 200 hours of community service at Hospice Malta.
Many applauded the decision. However, beyond the merits of this specific case, focusing on the community service order as a valuable tool in the criminal justice system would be opportune.
As it happens, it was 20 years ago – on June 1, 2003 – that the Maltese courts were empowered by law to order convicted offenders to carry out a community service. The first sentence that included a community service order was handed down on April 26, 2004.
More followed, though it is not clear how widespread among the judiciary is the interest in such form of sanction. Information available online from news sources indicate that nine individuals were ordered by the court to do community service in 2021, down from 37 the previous year.
The experience, at least in some other countries that adopted the system, indicates support to the idea of having offenders doing community service on the basis of the principles of desistance (abstaining from crime) as well as restorative and social justice.
Community service gives offenders the opportunity to make amends for their actions. In cases, it can even serve as rehabilitation, providing the offender with new skills, work experience and an opportunity to shoulder responsibility.
It is certainly less expensive than imprisonment. It allows a person to remain in the community where meeting people willing to offer genuine help is more likely than being influenced by bad apples in a prison notorious for being anything but a ‘correctional facility’. And, more importantly, it does not deprive offenders of their personal liberty.
Rather than punishing an offender outright, a community service order is aimed at giving something back to society. It cannot be excluded that such orders are issued in addition to other types of punishment, such as fines, but this runs the risk of being seen as more retaliatory than reparative.
It would, of course, be futile and self-defeating issuing community service orders merely to reduce prison populations or to save the exchequer money.
It needs to be ascertained – and, therefore, the input of social and probation professionals is essential – that, while promoting their general rehabilitation, offenders can engage constructively with the community.
Whether the right set-up exists to ensure that community sentencing serves its purpose is unclear.
However, this tool needs to be given all the attention it deserves. The judiciary and the probation services should take the lead.