Margaret Vella successfully appealed her conviction for insult and threatening behaviour after arguing she was the actual victim of a physical attack by the complainant.
Court of Criminal Appeal · The Honourable Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera, LL.D., Ph.D. · 23 April 2026
On the evening of 1 August 2023, Margaret Vella and her husband Philip were outside their home on Triq Għajnsielem, Għajnsielem, Gozo, performing maintenance work, when a couple named Mary and Anthony Sultana drove past twice and then stopped their vehicle, leaving it running with headlights directed at the Vellas. Mary Sultana and her husband exited the car, approached the Vellas, and a confrontation ensued. According to evidence presented, Mary Sultana physically grabbed Margaret Vella's left arm, squeezed it, pulled her, and pushed her — twice — while Margaret Vella never raised her hands against anyone. Margaret Vella attended the Emergency Department of Gozo General Hospital the same night, where Dr James Sammut documented tenderness and redness on her left neck, left arm, and little finger. The Magistrates' Court of Gozo had convicted Margaret Vella on the second charge (insulting, threatening, or injuring Mary Sultana by words or otherwise) and the third charge (rushing at Mary Sultana with intent to injure, disturb, or harm her), fining her €50 on each count. The court also imposed a two-year Restraining Order in favour of Mary Sultana under Article 382A of the Criminal Code. Margaret Vella appealed, arguing that the evidence clearly showed she was the victim, not the aggressor. On appeal, Vella raised four grounds. First, she argued that the video footage she submitted as Exhibit MV2 — which she said clearly showed the Sultanas arriving, exiting their vehicle, and Mary Sultana raising her hands against her twice — was wrongly dismissed by the lower court as unrelated to the incident. Second, she contended that the lower court had misappraised the evidence, particularly by relying on the testimony of Godwin Sultana, who admitted under cross-examination that he was not present at the scene on the night in question. Third, she argued that the lower court gave no reasons for finding her guilty of the second charge, violating the principle that every conviction must be motivated. Fourth, she challenged the admissibility of a police affidavit on the ground that it failed to state the place where the oath was administered, as required by Article 7 of Chapter 79 of the Laws of Malta. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the lower court had committed serious errors. The video evidence submitted by Vella visibly showed Mary Sultana approaching and physically pushing Vella on two occasions, yet the first court dismissed it as irrelevant. Even the CCTV footage presented by the prosecution showed Mary Sultana pushing the appellant. The medical certificate confirming Vella's injuries was uncontradicted. The court further noted that Mary Sultana herself could not identify the appellant in court, could not confirm the exact date of the incident, and never clearly attributed the alleged offending conduct to Vella specifically. Given that the complainant and her husband were the ones who stopped, approached, and escalated the confrontation, the appeal court found the conviction unsustainable.
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the appeal of Margaret Vella. The convictions on the second charge (insulting/threatening Mary Sultana) and the third charge (rushing at Mary Sultana with intent to injure) were quashed. Vella was acquitted of all charges. The €50 fines on each of the two counts and the two-year Restraining Order imposed by the Magistrates' Court were set aside.
Criminal Code Cap. 9 — Arts. 17(c), 338(dd), 339(1)(d), 339(1)(e), 251B(1), 382A, 383, 384, 385, 412C; Commissioners for Oaths Ordinance Cap. 79 — Art. 7