A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice, Equality and Governance announced the introduction of free legal services for alleged survivors of domestic violence. I use the word ‘alleged’ not to demean such persons or their situation but to be legally correct. 

I had harped on the need for this intervention on a live radio show not long before, precisely on the day Malta woke up to the news that Chantelle Chetcuti, a 34-year- old mother of two had tragically died, allegedly at the hands of the father of her children. May her family and friends find the strength to carry on.

In a nutshell, the programme was focused on what we as individuals, we as society and what government must do to address this evident and ever-growing problem of gender and sexual-based violence in Malta. We spoke of addressing patriarchal societal norms, pushing forward equality in all sectors of life and enhanced training for the police.

Financial independence among these many factors, however, is key. It is crucial that a person who seeks help finds it and, more importantly, does not shy away from reporting for fear of monetary limitations. Out of all fears a survivor of violence may be faced with, the fear of not being able to pay a lawyer should definitely not be one of them. 

Chantelle Chetcuti was killed in February. Her estranged partner stands accused of the crime.

Thankfully, today this fear has been done away with and any person who requires legal assistance in cases of domestic violence will have that help, free of charge, by one of three advocates working on a roster.

This differs from legal aid, in that this is a pool of three lawyers specialised in handling these delicate cases and this legal assistance is not limited to criminal matters but is available across the board. To avail yourself of this help one may call on 7974 7974, 2567 4330 or send an e-mail to domesticviolence.legalaidmalta@gov.mt. 

Ultimately, this has introduced a sort of two-tier representation for victims of crime, known as the ‘parte civile’ in criminal proceedings. I say this because the prosecution in criminal proceedings rests in the hands of the executive police or the attorney general, depending on the court before which proceedings are ongoing. These prosecutorial figures may be said to represent a victim’s rights, notwithstanding the possibility of them adducing evidence in favour or against the accused. Nonetheless, the state is ensuring that legal representation of victims before the Court of Magistrates is free of charge. 

The rights of the parte civile before the Courts of Magistrates are far-reaching, in that questions may be posed to witnesses, evidence may be produced and submissions may be made. 

This finds no equivalent before the Criminal Court. This brings me to a topic that merits a profound discussion: the rights of the parte civile before the Criminal Court. This court basically deals with the more serious offences. 

It is common knowledge that trials by jury are largely reserved for the trying of the crimes of wilful homicide, attempted wilful homicide and serious drug offences.

Albeit the seriousness of these proceedings before this court, the parte civile has no right to bring evidence, no right to pose questions to witnesses and no right to make submissions. If anything, shouldn’t it be the inverse situation? Shouldn’t a victim have more rights in more serious offences? Obviously, the advocates for the victim may liaise with the attorney general, but is this enough? 

This year we saw the profound effects that a victim’s statement can have on the punishment awarded to a person convicted. In this particular case, although there had been agreement between the accused and the attorney general for the amount of punishment to be awarded in return for a guilty plea, the Criminal Court rejected this agreement altogether and sentenced the aggressor of Mariel Agius to 18 years’ imprisonment. 

A measure that comes to mind, especially during these trying times marked by social distancing, is to ramp up the use of video-conferencing facilities in court. Can’t we find a way to give the parte civile and his or her advocate the possibility of following proceedings virtually? 

Is there really the need for the parte civile and the accused to be physically in the same courtroom only metres apart? Do they really need to wait in the same hallway, if not on the same bench, for their case to be called? While video-conferencing is being used by courts when a vulnerable person gives testimony, the buck stops there. 

I encourage the government to explore this possibility and I am optimistic that this government and others succeeding it will introduce more measures that matter.

Ana Thomas is a lawyer and participant in the Lead programme.