A criminal court that added on three years of imprisonment to a 15-year term reached through plea bargaining had acted within its rights, a court of appeal said, confirming punishment.
Rawad Briga Abdelsalam, a 34-year-old Libyan national, had filed an appeal following last year’s decision by the criminal court to stray from the punishment suggested by the parties by means of a joint application filed prior to the accused’s admission to the charges.
The man opted to register an admission instead of facing trial over the attempted murder of a Maltese woman in a violent mugging that took place in the early hours of August 28, 2016 in Sqaq Lourdes, St Julian’s.
The aggressor had slashed the victim’s throat after approaching the woman and her Polish friend in an attempt to steal their handbags.
The woman recounted her ordeal before Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti who, as a measure of good judgment, had put into effect a law that “often and unfortunately was not fully implemented”, said the judges, making reference to the Victims of Crime Act.
In terms of that law, victims had a right to be updated about the criminal process, even if they chose not to actively participate therein.
In this case, the victim had testified about the “physical and psychological” repercussions of the attack which had landed her in a critical condition, temporarily depriving her of her voice and consequently, her job.
Her aggressor had expressed remorse and asked the court for clemency, pointing out that the woman had never shown “interest in the proceedings”.
When delivering judgment, the court of criminal appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Madam Justice Edwina Grima and Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja, held that the criminal court was empowered to hear the victim’s testimony before sentencing.
It also had discretion to impose a punishment that was “adequate” within the circumstances of the case, irrespective of any plea bargaining agreement.
Nor was the court bound to forewarn the parties about the possible variation in punishment.
As for the accused, who had registered an admission at a later stage of the proceedings in hope of getting a reduced punishment, “no one had forced him to do so”, observed the court.
He knew beforehand that the criminal court might vary the punishment agreed upon and that “nothing was guaranteed”.
Once he registered a guilty plea, after seeking legal advice and after being allowed sufficient time to reconsider, the accused had to shoulder “full responsibility of that admission and the consequences thereof”.
In light of the serious circumstances of the case, the punishment ultimately meted out by was not excessive and well within legal parameters, said the judges, rejecting the appeal and confirming the punishment given by the criminal court.