Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1542030
2 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 17 DECEMBER 2025 NEWS KARL AZZOPARDI kazzopardi@mediatoday.com.mt Average two-bedroom apartment rent increased by 28.3% between 2022 and 2024 A study published by Solidarjetà showed between 2022 and 2024, the average rent for a two-bed- room apartment increased by 28.3%. The study showed more than twice the increase in the mean national salary which rose by 12.4% during the same period. The author describes the cur- rent Maltese rental market as "structurally unbalanced and operates to the severe detri- ment of tenants." Based on the official data released by the Housing Au- thority, the study shows rents for a two-bedroom apartment increased from an average of €770 per month in 2022 to €990 a month in 2024. Similarly, a three-bedroom apartment saw an increase from €925 to €1,120 a month respectively. Regions where rents were pre- viously cheaper saw some of the highest increases. In Gozo, rents for a two-bed- room apartment increase by 42%, while in the Southern Har- bour region rents increased by 40%. The excessive increases were observed in popular lo- calities as well. In Gzira, for ex- ample, rents for a two-bedroom apartment increased by 45.8%, equivalent to an additional €377 per month. The study compared the ob- served increase with a regulato- ry intervention which extended the 5% maximum price increas- es that is in place for multi-year contracts to apply between one contract and another. It finds that the actual 2024 price for a two-bedroom apartment (€989) exceeds this regulated model by €145 per month. This excess rent translates to annual in- creases of €1,300 to €1,740 per household. A petition started by Patricia Graham, a member of Solidar- jetà, calling for Parliament to "Tie the 5% rent increase direct- ly to the original amount reg- istered with the Housing Au- thority, regardless of whether a lease is renewed or a new tenant moves in" has already garnered over 800 signatures. Solidarjetà reiterates its call for the public to sign the peti- tion. A study showed between 2022 and 2024, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment increased by 28.3% CONTINUES FROM PAGE 1 The appellant, Okamura Sa- toshi was charged with multi- ple animal cruelty charges un- der the Animal Welfare Act, including killing animals, caus- ing unnecessary pain, suffer- ing, distress or abandonment to animals. In relation to an incident on 1 August 2025, the appellant was also charged with assault- ing or resisting police officers, causing slight bodily injuries to the same officers, threatening or reviling police officers in the execution of their duties and disobeying lawful orders and obstructing public officers in the execution of their duties. The Court of Magistrates found the accused guilty upon his own admission and sen- tenced him to two years' im- prisonment, a fine of €15,000, payable within two years and a 40-year prohibition from keeping animals. Satoshi was also placed under a three-year treatment order. The appellant filed an appeal on 29 October 2025, request- ing partial confirmation of the judgment insofar as guilt was concerned but sought the revocation and reduction of the punishment imposed. His grievances were twofold. He alleged the First Court failed to adequately consider his psy- chological condition and need for professional intervention and that the punishment im- posed was excessive and dis- proportionate. Before addressing the appel- lant's grievances, the Court considered Article 382 of Chapter 9, which provides: "The court, in delivering judg- ment against the accused, shall state the facts of which he has been found guilty, shall award punishment and shall quote the article of this Code or of any other law creating the of- fence." The court stressed this requirement is mandatory and not a mere formality. The court later observed in re- lation to the charge of causing slight bodily injuries, the First Court cited Articles 215 and 221(1) of the Criminal Code. However Article 215 merely classifies bodily harm as griev- ous or slight and Article 221(1) defines what constitutes slight bodily harm. Neither provision creates the offence itself. Relying on established juris- prudence, the court held failure to cite the correct constitutive provision, which criminalis- es bodily harm amounted to a substantial procedural defect, rendering the judgment null. Citing incorrect or inapplica- ble provisions is legally equiv- alent to citing none at all. The court further noted such nulli- ty may be raised ex officio, even if not pleaded by the appellant. The court clarified this nulli- ty did not invalidate the entire proceedings but was limited to the judgment itself. All pri- or procedural acts remained valid and the accused had to be restored to the procedural position he occupied immedi- ately before the judgment was delivered. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal revoked the judgment ex officio and remit- ted the acts back to the Court of Magistrates for a fresh judg- ment in accordance with law. Given this outcome, the court found it unnecessary to address the appellant's substantive grievances regarding punish- ment or treatment orders. Judge Neville Camilleri pre- sided over the appeal. Inspector Eliot Magri prose- cuted. Defence lawyers Adreana Zammit and Marion Camilleri represented the accused. Sliema cat killer will need to be re-sentenced after procedural shortcoming, court rules