Last Tuesday, four men were jailed for life for the murders of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and lawyer Carmel Chircop. Robert Agius, known as Ta’ Maksar, and his associate Jamie Vella were convicted of supplying the car bomb that killed Caruana Galizia in October 2017.
Vella, along with Adrian Agius and George Degiorgio, was also convicted of the murder of Chircop, who was shot four times as he entered a garage near his home in October 2015.
George Degiorgio, Adrian Agius, Jamie Vella and Robert Agius. Photo: Chris Sant FournierBut does life imprisonment mean these men will spend the rest of their lives in prison?
Life imprisonment is the harshest punishment available under Maltese law since the abolition of the death penalty in 1971. It is handed down for heinous crimes such as murder, drug trafficking, attempted assassination of the president of the Republic, attempts to overthrow the government and crimes that threaten democracy.
In theory, a life sentence means that a person will spend the remainder of their life in prison. However, in practice, this may not always be the case.
So, is there an earlier way out?
Yes. There are legal windows that could allow a prisoner serving a life sentence to be released. Under current Maltese laws, a lifer can apply for a presidential pardon. Additionally, a judge handing down a life sentence can recommend to the prime minister a minimum period that should pass before the prisoner becomes eligible for release. This makes early release possible, but not guaranteed, and entirely discretionary.
Currently, Maltese law does not allow life prisoners to apply for parole. However, this prohibition has been successfully challenged as unconstitutional.
Are there other ways of early release?
Technically yes. But they involve taking further legal steps that essentially challenge the current law as unconstitutional. This comes after legal developments over the years have opened the door to hope for those serving life sentences.
Various constitutional judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have pushed for mechanisms that provide the possibility of release from life imprisonment. These rulings argue that while a country may impose life imprisonment to protect society, the law must also allow for the possibility of release. The emphasis is on “possibility”, as it does not necessarily mean that the prisoner will definitely be released.
The European court has repeatedly upheld the view that the right to be treated with human dignity includes what has been called “the right to hope” and has emphasised that hope is essential to human dignity.
Importantly, a favourable court ruling does not guarantee release – it only ensures the prisoner has the right to be considered
Did the European court judgments impact Malta?
While the ECHR judgments did not directly involve Malta, since Malta is a member of the Council of Europe and a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, Maltese courts and lawmakers are expected to take ECHR jurisprudence into account.
In fact, constitutional cases initiated locally referenced the European court judgments – and hinged on them:
In 2018, the Maltese Constitutional Court granted Brian Vella, a double murderer serving a life sentence, the right to have his sentence reviewed after 25 years. Vella had killed an elderly couple, who were his neighbours, in their Santa Luċija home in February 2000. The court found that a life sentence without the prospect of review was incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against inhuman treatment.
Similarly, in late 2016, the Maltese Constitutional Court accepted an application by Ben Hassine Ali Wahid for a sentence review. Hassine had been convicted in 1992 of the brutal murders of four men – two taxi drivers, a Briton, and a Frenchman – and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the time of sentencing, the court had recommended that he serve a minimum of 22 years.
After serving that time, he argued that his continued imprisonment without the possibility of review violated his fundamental human rights. In response, the court called on legislators to create a mechanism to allow for life sentences to be reduced.
Both men were not released.
Are these legal mechanisms in place?
Not yet. A bill proposing an amendment to the Restorative Justice Act (Bill 199 of 2017) seeks to abolish the article which currently prevents lifers from applying for parole.
Despite these legal developments, the law remains unchanged. Life prisoners in Malta still cannot apply for parole under the current Restorative Justice Act. However, they may challenge this in court and, if successful, gain the right to apply for release.
Importantly, a favourable court ruling does not guarantee release – it only ensures the prisoner has the right to be considered.