Police vs Axisa — Double Jeopardy Bars Employment Charges

Court acquits director on all charges after finding that prior conviction for same facts triggers the ne bis in idem principle under Maltese law.

Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature · Magistrate Dr. Yana Micallef Stafrace LL.D. · 6 May 2026

Stefan Axisa, director of Kerber ES Ltd (C 97434), was charged before the Court of Magistrates with two offences under Chapter 594 of the Laws of Malta. The charges alleged that on 17 August 2024 and earlier, he failed to notify Jobsplus that he had employed Matija Kostovic (Charge 1, contrary to Article 36), and that he employed a foreign national who held no exemption and no licence authorising that employment (Charge 2, contrary to Article 43). The alleged offences took place at the Toyroom premises in St Julian's. The prosecution was represented by Dr. Ray Farrugia of Jobsplus, who explained that the charges had been brought following an order from Magistrate Dr. Donatella Frendo Dimech in separate proceedings, directing Jobsplus to investigate potential breaches of Chapter 594. The defence raised the fundamental procedural objection of ne bis in idem — that Axisa had already faced proceedings for the same facts in case number 9449/2024 (Il-Pulizija vs Kerber ES Ltd u Stefan Axisa), which was decided by Magistrate Frendo Dimech on 25 February 2025, resulting in a fine, and which was not appealed. A Jobsplus official, Marica Mifsud, confirmed under oath that no appeal had been lodged against the earlier judgment in case 9449/2024, and a copy of that judgment together with details of the fine imposed was exhibited to the court. The accused chose not to give evidence. The prosecution ultimately remitted itself to the court's discretion on the ne bis in idem issue. Magistrate Dr. Yana Micallef Stafrace found that the principle of ne bis in idem applied squarely to the facts before her. Since the same accused had already been prosecuted and convicted for the same conduct in case 9449/2024, subjecting him to a fresh set of charges arising from identical facts would violate this fundamental safeguard. The court therefore acquitted Stefan Axisa on all counts and discharged him from any guilt or punishment.

Stefan Axisa found not guilty on all charges (Articles 36 and 43 of Chapter 594). Acquitted and discharged from all guilt and punishment on the basis of the ne bis in idem principle, given the prior conviction in case 9449/2024 (Il-Pulizija vs Kerber ES Ltd u Stefan Axisa, decided 25 February 2025) which resulted in a fine and was not appealed.

• The ne bis in idem principle in Maltese law prohibits prosecuting a person twice for the same facts or offence — once a final judgment has been delivered and not appealed, fresh charges on identical facts must be dismissed.
• A prior conviction resulting in a fine, if not appealed, is a final judgment capable of triggering ne bis in idem, even where the second prosecution was ordered by a different magistrate in separate proceedings.
• Under Chapter 594 of the Laws of Malta (Employment and Training Services Act), employers must notify Jobsplus of new employees and must not employ foreign nationals who lack an appropriate work licence or exemption — failure to comply attracts criminal liability.
• Company directors can be personally charged alongside or instead of the company for regulatory employment offences, meaning corporate liability does not shield individual directors from prosecution.
• When a regulatory body such as Jobsplus is directed by a court to investigate and charge an individual, that instruction does not override the accused's constitutional and procedural right not to be tried twice for the same conduct.

Employment and Training Services Act, Chapter 594 of the Laws of Malta — Articles 36 (failure to notify Jobsplus of employee) and 43 (employing a foreign national without a work licence or exemption); ne bis in idem principle

Report an error or outdated information