The Maltese sentencing regime in relation to drug trafficking offences

Abstract

The Maltese drug trafficking sentencing regime is frequently criticised by the media and legal practitioners alike. Although cases of inconsistencies do exist, many commentators often fail to account for the numerous sentencing factors weighing on the final sentence. The aim of this study is to identify the existing elements and their individual significance in view of punishment, with the ultimate view to developing a more coherent outlook towards the sentencing process. The first Chapter provides a succinct background to the study by delving into the Maltese law on the offence of drug trafficking. Firstly, it examines the international laws relating to drugs, whilst subsequently analysing the different offences and punishments found in the Maltese drug laws. Chapter Two discusses the unique pre-trial role of the Attorney General, with special emphasis on his power to direct trial before the appropriate Court. The effects of this decision are observed in detail, with particular attention on the human rights issues that tend to surface. The second part of the Chapter deals with the procedural and administrative factors affecting sentencing, namely the guilty plea and the cooperation of the accused with the authorities. Chapter Three further examines the regime by pinpointing the legal factors to be accounted for by the adjudicator, which, by reason of their mandatory nature, severely restrict the discretion of the Courts. Similarly, Chapter Four analyses certain personal and legal factors affecting punishment, yet the considerations mentioned therein are merely discretionary. Consequently, the final Chapter evaluates the notion of inconsistency and accordingly pinpoints to methods that seek its elimination, largely through an extensive comparative approach. The study concludes with a solution for Malta, which aims towards the realisation of a more coherent approach to sentencing.