Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1540090
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 OCTOBER 2025 OPINION & LAW THE fact that a person was in possession of stolen items close to when they were stolen does not necessarily mean the indi- vidual stole those items. This was held in Police vs Savid Scicluna presided over by Magistrate Rachel Montebello on 1 Octo- ber 2025. Scicluna was charged with stealing car number plates and receiving stolen goods between 1 to 3 October 2022. The court analysed the evidence brought before it. From the evidence the owner of a car was involved in a traffic accident and the vehicle had to be towed. It was parked in a field in Mqabba next to the panel beat- er. The panel beater reported that three wheels of the car and the number plates were stolen. The police investigated this crime and learnt that Scicluna's car must have been involved. When the car was searched, they found the two stolen num- ber plates. Scicluna did not testify but gave a police statement. The statement explained that his car was used by a number of people. He had seen these number plates in his car but nobody explained what they were doing there. There was no other evidence against Scicluna. The court quoted from English jurist, Archbold, who explained the theory of unlawful of recent stolen goods or also known as the theory of recent possession. He wrote that in the case when goods were stolen and then found shortly after in the accused's possession, then the jury may consider convicting the accused of burgla- ry. However, if the only evidence is that of recent possession, then it is impossible to exclude the possibility that the defendant was merely a receiver of the stolen prop- erty. In this case the charge of burglary ought not to be left to the jury. In most cases there are other pieces of evidence that show whether the accused stole the items or not. The court in this case applied this reason- ing. It pointed out that almost a month had passed from when the plates were stolen and it was not a case that they were discov- ered the next day. Furthermore, the other items stolen were not found in Scicluna's possession. Therefore, the court could not conclude that the accused stole the items mentioned in the charges. The court dis- missed the prosecution's submission that he should be found guilty because he has a long criminal record and associates him- self with criminals. The court moved to find Scicluna not guilty of theft. As to the charge of handling stolen goods, the court quoted from a previous judgment, Police vs Frankie Bugeja decid- ed on appeal on 26 June 2024, where the court held that the elements of this crime are that the illegal possession must be de- rived from theft, that the accused received the stolen items and when the accused re- ceived the items, he was aware that they were stolen. In Scicluna's case, the court pointed out that the accused claimed that these plates were given to him when he had a puncture on 27 October 2022, well before the period when they were purportedly stolen. The court held that it was up to the prosecution to prove that Scicluna held the items in the beginning of October 2022. The date was an important element. In Police vs Harish Daswani decided on 16 February 2021, the court held: "…that the Court could not have found guilt on the first charge in view that not all the elements of the offence took place in the period mentioned in the charge sheet. The court is therefore abstaining from taking cognisance of the second grievance…" The prosecution failed to make the nec- essary corrections in the charges to reflect the timing of the alleged theft and posses- sion of stolen goods. Subsequently it failed to prove that the accused had possession of the stolen goods between 1 to 3 October 2022. Since there was no evidence to sug- gest so, there was reasonable doubt on the accused's guilt. The court moved to acquit the accused of this charge also. Possession of stolen goods does not necessarily mean guilty of theft MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates The corporate capture of seeds: Who controls our food? Lucas Micallef President Socjetà Agrarja FOR thousands of years, saving seeds was a farmer's natural right. It was how families built resil- ience, preserved diversity, and kept culture alive. Today, that right has been eroded. A handful of corporations now dominate the seed supply and Europe is no ex- ception. Seeds may look small, but they carry immense power. With- out them, there is no harvest, no bread, no wine, no culture. Gen- erations of European farmers se- lected and saved seeds adapted to their soils, climates, and tra- ditions. But in just four decades, this system of shared abundance has been dismantled, replaced by corporate ownership. As climate change accelerates and food secu- rity becomes fragile, the question of who controls seeds is a defining one. From commons to commodity The turning point came in 1980, when the US Supreme Court al- lowed life itself to be patented. What had always been common suddenly became property. Farm- ers who had saved seeds as their ancestors did were told they could no longer do so. Corporations raced to patent, purchase, and consolidate. Mon- santo—once just a chemical pro- ducer—became the symbol of this shift. Between 1985 and 2009, it swallowed dozens of seed compa- nies, patenting herbicide-resistant crops like soybeans and maize. By the late 2010s, mergers pro- duced today's Big Three: Bayer (which took over Monsanto), Corteva, and Syngenta. Together, they now control more than 60% of the global commercial seed market. Their reach extends in- to Europe's fields, shaping what farmers can plant and what citi- zens can eat. What Europe risks losing This concentration of power carries heavy costs: • Biodiversity decline: Tradi- tional varieties are disappearing. Three-quarters of global plant diversity is already gone. In Mal- ta, heritage tomatoes are increas- ingly rare. In Italy, ancient grains like einkorn survive only thanks to dedicated farmers. In Greece, har- dy olive varieties face replacement by uniform, high-yield clones. Uniformity leaves us dangerously exposed to pests, disease, and climate shocks. • Farmer dependency: Farmers tied to patented seed-and-chem- ical packages must purchase fresh every year. What was once self-sufficiency has become de- pendency. • Innovation stifled: Corporate research chases patents and prof- its, not resilience. Herbicide tol- erance and pest resistance domi- nate, while traits Europe urgently needs—drought adaptation, nu- trition, flavour—are neglected. • Biopiracy: Europe's own her- itage crops risk being mined for traits, patented, and sold back to us. Centuries of farmer knowledge reduced to commodities. Seeds as power Seeds are not just agriculture. They are carriers of memory, cul- ture, and sovereignty. Each seed holds centuries of adaptation and the promise of renewal. When control shifts from farmers to corporations, it is not only an eco- nomic matter—it is about power. Whoever controls seeds controls food. And whoever controls food controls people. For Europe, where farming is en- twined with cultural heritage, the erosion of seed sovereignty is not just about agriculture. It is the loss of identity, story, and flavour. The EU debate The EU is revisiting seed laws under the Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy. But corporate lobbying is fierce. The question is simple: Will farmers regain the right to save, exchange, and mar- ket their seeds, or will rules con- tinue to favour monopolies? What Europe needs is clear: • Strong antitrust enforcement to halt consolidation. • Seed laws that empower farm- ers, not corporations. • Public programmes that sup- port climate resilience, nutrition, and local adaptation over patents. Fighting back Across Europe, resistance is alive. In Italy, Spain, and Greece, networks protect heritage wheat, beans, and olives. In France, seed houses safeguard thousands of varieties. In Spain, Red de Semil- las links farmers in a living web of exchange. These efforts remind us that diversity is resilience. Farming rooted in tradition and adapted to place is not backward—it is the fu- ture. Consumers also carry power. Choosing regional produce sus- tains biodiversity and supports the farmers who protect it. Every pur- chase can be an act of resistance. The corporate capture of seeds has narrowed our choices and weakened our food system. But across Europe, people are prov- ing another path is possible. It is a path rooted in diversity, sover- eignty, and justice. The EU now faces a choice: De- fend monopolies, or defend seed sovereignty as part of Europe's legacy. Citizens, too, must choose between passive uniformity or ac- tive diversity. Because in the end, whoever controls seeds controls the future. And Europe must ensure that fu- ture belongs to its people. The statement explained that his car was used by a number of people. He had seen these number plates in his car but nobody explained what they were doing there. There was no other evidence against Scicluna.