Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1547461
LORIN Scicluna was acquitted of mur- dering Ivorian national Lassana Cisse Souleymane and attempting to kill three other migrants last Sunday. While jurors cleared the former soldier of seven of the nine charges against him, they convicted him of grievously injuring May Malimi during a separate hit-and- run incident and using a vehicle without registration plates. But the jury's conclusion has left peo- ple reeling, as questions continue to be raised on why Francesco Fenech will be tried separately, whether he could have been convicted without firing the weap- on, and what potential punishment he faces. Could Scicluna have been convicted even if jurors believed he did not fire the gun? Yes, even though Scicluna was not charged with a separate complicity charge. Scicluna was indicted for mur- der as a principal offender with the wil- ful homicide charge. However, Article 467(2) of the Criminal Code allows ju- rors to convict an accused as an accom- plice where jurors are not satisfied that the accused was the principal offender, but his complicity is proved. Therefore, prosecutors did not need a separate complicity count. This legal principle was discussed in the case of Jesper Gejl Kristiansen who admitted his involvement in the murder of Christian Pandolfino and Ivor Macie- jowski. Judge Aaron Bugeja explained that Article 467(2) allows jurors to con- vict an accused as an accomplice even if originally indicted as the principal of- fender, provided the evidence establish- es complicity. The court also referred to another Court of Criminal Appeal judg- ment, which confirmed that a separate complicity charge is not required for such a finding. The Criminal Code explains the con- cept of complicity in several ways, in- cluding knowingly supplying weapons, assisting in a crime's preparation or commission, or encouraging its perpe- trator. Prosecutors argued that Scicluna could not escape responsibility simply because Fenech allegedly fired the shots. They highlighted Scicluna's car and fire- arm, the removal of registration plates and the decision to leave mobile phones behind as evidence of a shared criminal purpose. The defence maintained that Fenech fired unexpectedly and Scicluna shared no intention to kill. During her final address, Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras expressly direct- ed jurors that Scicluna could be convicted as an accomplice if the necessary common intention to kill and criminal participation were established. Why were Scicluna and Fenech tried separately? Fenech and Scicluna were charged to- gether in May 2019. Their proceedings were separated following an Attorney General request on 24 June 2022. Under Maltese law, co-accused generally cannot testify against one another while their respective criminal proceedings re- main pending, even if they are tried sep- arately. This principle is closely linked to the right against self-incrimination. Where individuals are tried together, a confession made by one co-accused cannot be used as evidence of another's guilt. Although courts may order separate pro- ceedings, separation alone does not au- tomatically make a co-accused eligible to testify against the other. The restriction generally ceases once the prospective wit- ness's criminal case has become final (res judicata), including the conclusion of any appeals that are actually pursued. In November 2025, the judge confirmed that Fenech could not testify while his proceedings remained unresolved. How- ever, she refused to rule out his testimony permanently, since he could become an admissible witness once his proceedings were finalised. During the trial, investigator Keith Ar- naud acknowledged that allowing one accused to testify after his proceedings concluded could be a consequence of sep- aration. So, can Scicluna now testify against Francesco Fenech? Potentially, once sentencing and any ap- peals of Scicluna are finalised. This is sig- nificant because Scicluna maintained that Fenech fired the shots. However, his ac- quittal would not establish Fenech's guilt, and Fenech remains presumed innocent. Can the Attorney General appeal the decision? Article 500(2) of the Criminal Code al- lows the Attorney General to appeal the acquittal, solely on points of law. How- ever, Article 500(4) requires a grave procedural irregularity or a manifestly incorrect interpretation or application of law capable of influencing the ver- dict. Even then, an appeal may fail if no miscarriage of justice occurred. The Attorney General must file the appeal within 15 working days of the decision. Were any legal points raised that could feature in an appeal? The German–Fenech recording: The defence sought to play a recorded police confrontation between witness Dylan German and Francesco Fenech to chal- lenge German's credibility and question whether he was protecting his cousin. Prosecutors objected, but the recording was subsequently played in court, dur- ing which German admitted having lied in the earlier confrontation. Police officer's previous testimony: Defence lawyer Edward Gatt chal- lenged Constable Matthew Tonna's use of a screenshot of his earlier testimony while giving evidence. Despite prose- cution opposition, the judge ordered expert Martin Bajada to examine his phone. Another officer had emailed him the testimony. Prosecutors also attempted to in- troduce evidence from the magisteri- al inquiry through the court's deputy registrar. The judge questioned the pro- cedure, observing that this was not the usual way of presenting such evidence. The witness was subsequently excused without testifying. These are potential matters for le- gal examination, not confirmed appeal grounds. What punishment does Scicluna face? Scicluna was convicted of grievously injuring May Malimi, who was struck by a vehicle in February 2019, although jurors acquitted him of attempted mur- der of Malimi. Under Article 216 of the Criminal Code, grievous bodily harm ordinarily carries between one- and seven-years' imprisonment. However, Article 222A(2) allows the punishment to be increased by one or two degrees where the offence is racially aggravated. In Scicluna's case, the Attorney Gen- eral requested a sentence ranging from 18 months to nine years in the bill of in- dictment, increasing the punishment by one degree. The judge will determine the sentence within the limits prescribed by law. Although jurors convicted Scicluna of grievous bodily harm by six votes to three, the narrow majority does not au- tomatically warrant a lighter sentence or prevent the maximum penalty from being imposed. Sentencing remains at the judge's discretion, irrespective of the jury's voting majority. Scicluna previously spent nearly sev- en months in preventive custody, from May to December 2019. Qualifying time already spent on remand must be cred- ited against any prison sentence. The registration-plate offence he was found guilty for carries the €25–€60 fine sought in the indictment. 7 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 4 NOVEMBER 2026 NEWS MAYA GALEA mgalea@mediatoday.com.mt Lorin Scicluna's acquittal left many shocked. We try to answer your questions