Not only is the Times subtly and indirectly attributing a murder to Claire Zammit Xuereb, they’re also hell bent on pointing out the quirks of Maltese Criminal Law, specifically the sections which relate to self defence.

Quoting directly from the Times here:

“Article 224 of the Criminal Code specifies that if a homicide, or bodily harm, occurs at night and involves the victims breaking into the property, then no offence would have been committed.

According to the Criminal Code, it is a case of lawful defence if an aggressor is killed, or injured, at night-time – between the hours of sunset and sunrise – if the homicide, or harm, is the result of preventing the aggressor from entering an inhabited house, apartment or a connected annex, either by scaling walls or breaking enclosures and doors into it.”

Now I don’t know who the Times’ legal researcher is, and I don’t give much of a shit either, but I do know that what they seem to want you to think is that the law is an ass, specifically an ass of such celestial proportions that from a distance you might mistake it for Beyonce.

So, are you telling me that I stand to gain if I’m attacked in my own home during winter, given that the nights are that much longer? I use ‘stand to gain’ quite loosely here, as of course, an uninvited visitor is of no real gain to anyone.

And is the 21st of December, the longest night in a calendar year, the best night for you to violently repel a siege on your domicile, much like in Home Alone 1, 2, and 3?

Of course not. As usual, the Times neglects to give the whole picture. A cursory look at Article 224 of the Maltese Criminal Code will show anyone, even if they’re entirely unschooled in matters of the law, that the Times’ story is just more sensationalism. Conveniently enough, sensationalism is good for business. Very fucking good for business in fact. How do I know? Simple.

Take a look at the pic below. I snapped that at 12.49 on 5.1.2012. Of nine “In Discussion” stories, that is the stories which currently are getting most comments, four are related to the Sliema murders. Just yesterday the ratio was even higher, if memory serves me right six of nine. It’s safe to say the Times got quite a lot of mileage (by which I mean pageviews) out of the story.

So, here’s how the whole of article 224 reads.  You’ll notice it’s considerably different to what the Times is inferring:

 

224. Cases of actual necessity of lawful defence shall include
the following:

(a) where the homicide or bodily harm is committed in the
act of repelling, during the night-time, the scaling or
breaking of enclosures, walls, or the entrance doors of
any house or inhabited apartment, or of the
appurtenances thereof having a direct or an indirect
communication with such house or apartment;

(b) where the homicide or bodily harm is committed in the
act of defence against any person committing theft or
plunder, with violence, or attempting to commit such
theft or plunder;

(c) where the homicide or bodily harm is imposed by the
actual necessity of the defence of one’s own chastity or
of the chastity of another person.

 

 
So in brief, no, an assault on your residence at night is not the only case where deadly violence is ‘allowed by the law’. In fact, if you read Article 223, it plainly states that: “No offence is committed when a homicide or a bodily harm is ordered or permitted by law or by a lawful authority, or is imposed by actual necessity either in lawful self-defence or in the lawful defence of another person.”

I leave you to make your own judgements, no pun intended.