Police vs Minor — Dangerous Driving, No Licence, Assault on Officer

A minor pleaded guilty to reckless driving, taking a vehicle without consent, driving without a licence or insurance, and threatening a police officer.

Court for Minors as a Court of Criminal Judicature · Magistrate Dr. Abigail Critien B.A., Trib. Eccl. Melit., LL.M. (Family Law) (Lond), LL.D. · 7 May 2026

In the early hours of 31 December 2024, at approximately 01:38, a minor drove a vehicle along Triq tal-Barrani, Ħal-Tarxien towards Vjal 25 ta' Novembru, Żejtun, in a reckless, dangerous, and careless manner. The defendant had no driving licence, was not covered by third-party insurance, and was driving the vehicle without the owner's consent. When Police Sergeant 1144 attempted to stop him, the minor initially slowed down but then accelerated, forcing the officer to step aside to avoid being struck. The case was brought before the Court for Minors sitting as a Court of Criminal Judicature. The prosecution presented an affidavit from PS 1247 Ayrton Bianco James and an NPS report with reference 3/POL/6396/2024. Seven charges in total were laid against the defendant, including three driving-related counts, taking a vehicle without consent, driving without a licence, driving uninsured, and threatening or assaulting a public official in the execution of his duty. At the first hearing on 4 December 2025, the defendant entered an unequivocal guilty plea to all charges. The Court solemnly warned the accused of the legal consequences of his admission and afforded him time to consult his defence lawyer. The defendant confirmed his plea, and the Court accepted the admission pursuant to Article 392A of the Criminal Code (Cap. 9), finding no reason to doubt his guilt. In determining the sentence, the Court weighed several factors: the early guilty plea which saved court time and resources, the voluntary and unconditional nature of the admission, the absence of a criminal record on file (treated as a first conviction under the in dubio pro reo principle), the fact that the offences pre-dated the amendment of Article 95 Cap. 9 by Act IV of 2025, the seriousness of the charges including the conduct towards the police officer, and crucially, the defendant's status as a minor at the time of the offences. The Court concluded that a custodial sentence was not appropriate and that monetary penalties better reflected the circumstances.

The defendant was found guilty on all seven charges upon his own admission. Fines were imposed totalling €407.61 (€58.23 per charge for charges 1, 2, and 5, reduced to an ammenda under Article 13(1) of Cap. 9 by application of Articles 31(1)(f) and 37(2) of Cap. 9, treating these as a first conviction). An additional fine of €58.23 was imposed for the charge of assaulting/threatening the police officer (charge 7), similarly reduced to an ammenda. The defendant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months from the date of sentencing. No custodial sentence was imposed.

• In Maltese law, a guilty plea entered at the earliest stage of proceedings is a significant mitigating factor that courts consistently recognise as warranting a reduction in sentence, saving judicial time and resources.
• Under Article 37(2) of the Criminal Code (Cap. 9), a defendant who was a minor at the time of the offence is entitled to a reduction in the applicable penalty, which can result in fines being converted to an ammenda under Article 13(1).
• The principle of in dubio pro reo applies not only to guilt but also to sentencing: where a criminal record is not produced in evidence, Maltese courts will treat the conviction as a first offence for the purposes of charges where prior convictions affect the penalty.
• Maltese courts apply the law as it stood at the time the offence was committed. Amendments enacted after the offence date — such as the amendment to Article 95 Cap. 9 by Act IV of 2025 — do not apply retroactively to the detriment of the accused.
• Assaulting, threatening, or obstructing a public official in the execution of their duty is a standalone criminal charge under Article 95 of the Criminal Code, carrying its own separate penalty even when arising from the same incident as traffic offences.

Criminal Code Cap. 9 — Arts. 17(b), 31(1)(b)(c)(f)(g), 31(2), 37(2), 95, 392A; Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Ordinance Cap. 104 — Arts. 3(1), 3(1A), 3(2)(a), 3(2A); Traffic Regulation Ordinance Cap. 65 — Arts. 15(1)(a), 15(2), 15(3), 61(1)

Report an error or outdated information