Lawyers representing Roderick Cassar, who stands accused of killing his wife Bernice, are challenging the new femicide law, claiming that it breaches his right to a fair hearing, is highly discriminatory, sexist and totally counter-productive.

Bernice Cassar was assaulted and shot dead on November 22 last year outside her workplace at Corradino. 

Roderick Cassar was arrested several hours later after a stand-off and became the first person to be charged with the aggravating crime of femicide, which became part of the Criminal Code in June.

The law introduced a series of aggravating circumstances which qualify a wilful homicide as femicide and therefore liable for harsher punishment.  

It also removed the possibility of the defence pleading 'sudden passion' when one or more of the aggravating circumstances subsisted and the crime therefore fell within the concept of femicide.

The lawyers observed in their application before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction that these factors came into play only when the victim is a woman.

Murder victim Bernice Cassar.

It logically followed that at law, the murder of a man was now considered as less grievous than that of a woman and that the accused was placed at a disadvantage when the victim was a woman, they said. 

All parties in the same identical position should be treated equally but this amendment rather than promoting equality, did the complete opposite, by giving rise to preferential and differential treatment.

As for the plea of sudden passion, the lawyers argued that the plea should either be removed outright for all or else it should not be excluded in a discriminatory manner as was being done under the new law.

"This is a sensitive plea reflecting human nature and may be successfully raised when the provocation is such that it triggers a reaction in a person of ordinary temperament to the extent that he is unable to assess the consequences of the crime," they said. 

Moreover, the lawyers said, while wilful homicide carried the punishment of life imprisonment irrespective of the gender of the victim, the courts had the authority to mete out a fair and equitable punishment in light of the circumstances of each case. But the court’s hands were now being tied  through this new concept of femicide.

Why was this aggravated form of crime applied only to murder or attempted murder? Why not in respect of all crimes against women, they asked. And wasn't a man’s life as precious as that of a woman?

Could not the murder of a woman take place also under sudden passion?

This law, they insisted, was as bad as past laws which discriminated against women.

No other country has introduced any legislation of this kind that effectively discriminates against men.

That the accused could not plead sudden passion meant that he was being denied a valid defence. This went against the principle of presumption of innocence and equality of arms.

The Guide on Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights stated that “there must be a difference in treatment of the persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation,” for discrimination to be validly argued.

This was the situation in this case, argued the lawyers, calling upon the court to declare that the femicide law breached Cassar’s fundamental rights. The court was also asked to provide adequate and effective remedies accordingly.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Arthur Azzopardi, Marion Camilleri and Jacob Magri signed the application.