One cannot take the law into his own hands, even when rights are allegedly violated

By Jodie Darmanin 

No person can take the law in his own hands, even if his own rights are allegedly being violated by the other party. This was held in Police vs Joseph Camilleri decided on the 21 June 2024 by the Magistrates’ Court as a Court of Criminal Judicature presided by Magistrate Monica Vella.

Camilleri was accused of, without the intent to steal or to cause any wrongful damage, but only in the exercise of a pretended right, disturbing the possession of anything enjoyed by another person, and interfering with the property of another person as provided for under Article 85 of the Maltese Criminal Code.

In this case, it was observed that the accused was renting out property to Christina Camilleri, and subsequently changed the locks of the apartment, while also withholding her belongings on 18 October 2022. Joseph Camilleri maintained that he was within his rights to do so since the lease expired on the 17th of the month. Moreover, he justified the retention of her belongings due to the damages incurred within the leased property, asserting that these were not valuables.

The Court analysed the evidence and statements of witnesses brought before it. The police had received a complaint from Christina Camilleri, who reported her landlord for not returning back her belongings from the rented apartment. Upon arriving at the property on 18 October with her father, she also observed that the locks were changed and hence, had no access to the property.

The following day, the police called upon Joseph Camilleri to gather his version of events. He said that excessive damage was done to the property, and also held both parties verbally agreed that Christina had to leave on the 17th, although no termination agreement was ever signed. He further maintained that he reminded her to leave the property on the 17th via WhatsApp, and although she never responded, he considered the contract to be terminated, with the property becoming his, therefore allowing him the possibility to change the locks.

Christina confirmed that the defendant was her landlord, and acknowledged that she had to vacate the premises on 17 October. However, she recalled an incident which happened on 18 October where the landlord allegedly forced his way into the apartment and struck her because she left a window open. She said that this was not the only instance where the landlord had offended her.

When asked about damages caused, she held that this was done by her ex-husband, although she expressed her regret and communicated her disappointment to the landlord. Her father also testified that, even when the police spoke to Camilleri, he did not return her belongings.

The Court then went on to consider the other caselaw and elements which constitute the offence of Raggion Fattasi which occurs when an individual takes the law into their own hands. With reference to a judgment given by Judge William Harding, it was noted that the elements making up such offence are fourfold:

1.    An external act which deprives a person of something which he is enjoying, carried out against the opposition, whether expressed or presumed, of another;

2.    The belief that the act is done as an exercise of a right;

3.    The agent’s belief that he is performing a ‘di private braccio’, something which should have been done by a public authority;

4.    Absence of title, which renders the act more serious.

Even the simple detention of the right of enjoyment or use is sufficient for this offence to subsist, especially when it breaks the continued exercise of that right.

The Court kept in mind that the locks were changed without the tenant’s consent, thereby preventing her from getting back her belongings.

Furthermore, Camilleri admitted to changing the locks and withholding the tenant’s belongings because of the damages which were caused. The belongings were only returned two months after the incident.

After analysing all facts and evidence which came before it, the Court determined that the elements for Article 85 to subsist were satisfied. The Court explained that this would have held true even if Camilleri had the right to change the locks due to termination of the lease. Notwithstanding, the Court still had doubts with regard to this termination.

Seeing that damages were caused, Camilleri had alternative legal remedies available to him, both before the Civil Courts and the Rent Regulation Board. However, Camilleri took the law in his own hands, breaching provisions of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the Court ruled against Camilleri.