10 takeaways from Repubblika’s proposals to reform jury system

Rule-of-law NGO Repubblika is arguing against a knee-jerk abolition of Malta’s jury system following the controversial acquittals in the politically charged murder trial of Daphne Caruana Galizia and the racially motivated killing of Lassana Cisse.

Instead, it is presenting a range of possible reforms in a policy paper entitled Justice in the Name of the People, intended to trigger debate aimed at upgrading and defending citizen participation in the justice system.

The proposals include models combining professional judges and lay jurors, reasoned verdicts, stronger juror protections and improvements to criminal investigations.

The paper comes amid a heated debate over the future of the jury system, with some campaigners, including Matthew Caruana Galizia, calling for its abolition following two acquittals that provoked widespread anger and disbelief.

Justice Minister Clifton Grima has expressed confidence in the jury system while signalling openness to reforms, including a requirement for juries to explain the reasoning behind their verdicts.

Seizing the moment to contribute to the debate, Repubblika argues that the choice should not be limited to a binary one between retaining the status quo and abolishing juries altogether.

Its proposals offer several possible directions for reform, ranging from making fuller use of powers already available under Maltese law to introducing new safeguards for jurors and, ultimately, reconsidering the composition of criminal courts.

1. Make fuller use of powers already available under Maltese law

Repubblika argues that Malta could improve its existing jury system without first undertaking a major structural overhaul.

Article 436(3)(c) of the Criminal Code gives the Criminal Court discretion to take measures it considers necessary to establish the truth during proceedings.

Articles 477–480 also allow judges to put structured written questions to jurors, seek clarification of ambiguous verdicts and ask them to make findings on specific factual issues, while leaving complex legal questions to the court.

The NGO argues that greater use of these provisions could help judges guide juries more effectively and ensure that their deliberations address the specific factual issues in dispute

2. Introduce written, reasoned verdicts

One of the central proposals is to require juries to explain the reasoning behind their verdicts.

Under the current system, juries return verdicts without setting out the factual or legal considerations behind them. This can leave victims’ families and the public uncertain about how a decision was reached.

Repubblika refers to European Court of Human Rights judgments, including Taxquet v Belgium and Lhermitte v Belgium, which examined safeguards allowing defendants to understand the basis of jury decisions.

The NGO also argues that reasoned verdicts would make appellate scrutiny more meaningful by allowing the Court of Criminal Appeal to better understand the basis of a decision when considering appeals under Article 500 of the Criminal Code.

3. Improve juror selection, protection and welfare

Repubblika argues that citizen participation can only work if jurors are properly selected, protected from external pressure and supported throughout the process.

The paper calls for transparent, independently auditable procedures for compiling and publishing lists of eligible jurors. It refers to concerns raised before the 2026 murder trial of Yorgen Fenech, when a private 22-question opinion survey was commissioned following the publication of prospective jurors’ names. The NGO calls for legal prohibitions against pre-trial profiling, indirect contact with prospective jurors and covert research into their views.

It also proposes higher compensation and stronger employment protections, particularly for low-income workers, self-employed people and primary carers.

The paper calls for a review of routine sequestration during lengthy trials, suggesting it should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where less restrictive safeguards would suffice. It also proposes psychological support and debriefing for jurors exposed to traumatic evidence.

4. Strengthen police investigations and prosecutorial capacity

Repubblika stresses that juries can only assess the evidence presented to them. They cannot compensate for weak investigations, missing forensic evidence or shortcomings in the prosecution’s case.

The paper points to police resignations rising from 29 in 2013–2015 to 90 in 2020–2022. It also refers to more than 100 criminal jury trials awaiting a hearing, citing the European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law Report.

The NGO raises wider concerns about political interference and investigative independence, including issues examined by the public inquiry into Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination and links between former police official Silvio Valletta and Yorgen Fenech.

It also defends citizens’ right to request magisterial inquiries, arguing that jury reform must go hand in hand with stronger investigative and prosecutorial institutions.

5. Confront institutional racism and racial profiling

Repubblika argues that tackling racial inequality in the justice system requires addressing institutional barriers, under-representation and failures to investigate possible hate-crime motives.

The paper calls for lawful, confidential data collection to establish how many Black people and ethnic minorities serve as judges, magistrates, prosecutors, advocates, police officers and court staff, and to identify barriers to recruitment and advancement.

It refers to evidence presented during the Lassana Cisse murder trial, when co-accused Lorin Scicluna admitted under oath that he and his accomplice had driven around Ħal Far looking for Black people to harass.

While racist motives do not relieve the prosecution of proving every element of an offence, Repubblika argues that unexplained verdicts leave the public unable to understand how such evidence was assessed.

The NGO also calls for reforms to reflect recommendations in the Council of Europe’s 2024 ECRI report, particularly on police diversity, and for the implementation of Malta’s National Action Plan Against Racism 2025–2030.

6. Counter racism and polarisation through civic education

Repubblika argues that courtrooms reflect wider social attitudes and are not insulated from political tribalism, racial prejudice or other divisions.

Although the cases of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Lassana Cisse arose from very different circumstances, the NGO insists that every human life is entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of political affiliation, race or origin.

It proposes nationwide civic education covering constitutional principles, judicial independence, the presumption of innocence, critical thinking and media literacy. The programme would extend beyond schools to adult education, public institutions and civil society, with the aim of strengthening democratic awareness and countering partisan tribalism.

7. Preserve citizen participation in criminal trials

These proposals are underpinned by Repubblika’s argument that ordinary citizens’ participation in criminal trials is a democratic safeguard, not an obstacle to justice.

Juries distribute judicial power beyond professional institutions, bringing public experience and perspectives into the courtroom while guarding against institutional insularity.

The paper draws on research and comparative legal literature arguing that lay participation can strengthen the legitimacy of courts, broaden public involvement in justice and provide a safeguard against arbitrary government.

8. Consider mixed courts as an alternative to traditional juries

One option is to replace traditional juries with mixed courts in which professional judges and lay members deliberate and vote together.

Italy’s Court of Assizes (Corte d’Assise), for example, combines two professional judges with six lay judges, who participate in deciding both facts and law. Germany replaced its traditional jury model in 1924 with mixed courts, while France also uses mixed panels in serious criminal cases. Spain retains lay juries but provides them with structured questions to guide their deliberations.

Japan introduced its saiban-in system in 2009, bringing together three professional judges and six citizen judges in serious criminal cases.

These models differ in composition and procedure but seek to combine public participation with professional legal expertise.

9. Protect lay members from professional judicial dominance

Mixed courts would raise questions about whether lay members would have a meaningful say or simply defer to professional judges.

Repubblika points to safeguards used elsewhere. In Italy and Germany, lay members vote before professional judges, with the presiding judge voting last. Germany also requires a two-thirds majority for convictions in certain mixed-court settings, while France uses secret voting procedures.

The aim is to ensure that, if Malta adopts this model, lay members have a genuine say in decisions rather than simply deferring to professional judges.

10. Pair immediate reforms with a longer-term constitutional debate

Finally, Repubblika proposes a two-track approach, combining practical reforms with a longer debate about the constitutional structure of the courts.

Short-term measures could include better judicial guidance to juries, training for judges and prosecutors, stronger evidence-preservation procedures and improvements to juror selection and protection.

More fundamental changes to the composition of criminal courts and the way their decisions can be challenged should be considered through a broad constitutional convention rather than rushed through in response to controversial verdicts.

The NGO also proposes an independent, multidisciplinary Criminal Justice Review Body bringing together expertise in criminal and constitutional law, forensic science, human rights, social psychology, equality law and civic education.