Qormi murder compilation of evidence behind closed doors
Qormi murder compilation of evidence behind closed doors
This story published in The Times of Malta today has seriously aroused my curiosity. For a trial to be fair, it should be a public hearing, which is one of democracy's ways of ensuring that justice is not only done, but that it is also seen to be done. However, sometimes there is a greater need for the protection of a citizen, so great that it overrides the requirement of publicity (e.g. the need to protect the privacy of minors i.e. those under 18 years of age), in which case the court may order that certain parts of the trial - or all of it - remain private except to the involved parties. In this case it is only the gathering of evidence that is taking place behind closed doors - though I am very curious as to know why.
Another interesting issue about this case is this. A man had entered or trespassed on the property of another, and got killed in the process. The person who killed him was naturally acting in self defence - or in defence of his property - which normally serves to justify or at least mitigate the action done. The question is whether a person who acts after having such a fright will be understood in court. If this man is condemned, will this give the message that it is fine for people to trespass on the property of others, and therefore that the law will protect them in case that the rightful owner is frightened and injures (or even kills) the trespasser? Of course, it is always a question of proportionality. Was the act proportionate to the circumstances? Then again, how can one judge. not having been there? The judge's role here is indeed a difficult one.
One cannot underestimate the growing fear of thieves and trespassers, especially during the Christmas period. I am sure that the accused is not the first to be frightened in his home by someone stealing, or at least attempting to steal, this Christmas season. It happened to me as a child and believe me, it takes an age to get over. Sometimes the experience still comes back to me. It must be remembered that the accused was not alone in his house, but probably acted in protection of his wife and children - unless of course, we have totally misunderstood the scenario and there are elements we have not been told.
You cannot judge others, and I am not attempting to judge, either the accused or the victim. This post is merely to raise a few issues of concern which come to mind when one reads an article like this one.
This story published in The Times of Malta today has seriously aroused my curiosity. For a trial to be fair, it should be a public hearing, which is one of democracy's ways of ensuring that justice is not only done, but that it is also seen to be done. However, sometimes there is a greater need for the protection of a citizen, so great that it overrides the requirement of publicity (e.g. the need to protect the privacy of minors i.e. those under 18 years of age), in which case the court may order that certain parts of the trial - or all of it - remain private except to the involved parties. In this case it is only the gathering of evidence that is taking place behind closed doors - though I am very curious as to know why.
Another interesting issue about this case is this. A man had entered or trespassed on the property of another, and got killed in the process. The person who killed him was naturally acting in self defence - or in defence of his property - which normally serves to justify or at least mitigate the action done. The question is whether a person who acts after having such a fright will be understood in court. If this man is condemned, will this give the message that it is fine for people to trespass on the property of others, and therefore that the law will protect them in case that the rightful owner is frightened and injures (or even kills) the trespasser? Of course, it is always a question of proportionality. Was the act proportionate to the circumstances? Then again, how can one judge. not having been there? The judge's role here is indeed a difficult one.
One cannot underestimate the growing fear of thieves and trespassers, especially during the Christmas period. I am sure that the accused is not the first to be frightened in his home by someone stealing, or at least attempting to steal, this Christmas season. It happened to me as a child and believe me, it takes an age to get over. Sometimes the experience still comes back to me. It must be remembered that the accused was not alone in his house, but probably acted in protection of his wife and children - unless of course, we have totally misunderstood the scenario and there are elements we have not been told.
You cannot judge others, and I am not attempting to judge, either the accused or the victim. This post is merely to raise a few issues of concern which come to mind when one reads an article like this one.
Comments