Examine how Maltese Criminal Law considers attempts against the President of Malta
... State and not as a normal person. The crime need not be premeditated, but to be accused of the offence one simply has to know that he was committing the crimes against the life, liberty or safety of the President of Malta. A question arises as to whether the taking away of the liberty of the President of Malta may be both physical and moral. The Maltese position is not very clear since this point has never arisen in our courts. Under the Italian code, article 276 speaks of libertà personale while article 277 speaks of libertà di determinazione e di agire nell’autonomia delle volizioni, the former dealing with physical liberty and the latter with moral liberty. The Maltese criminal code, in section 55 does not specify whether the liberty of which the president is deprived need be moral or physical, however Section 71 of our code also speaks of mere attempts on the president to make him change his measures without actually taking his liberty, so moral liberty is also dealt with in this section. Even the endangering of the life of the President of Malta by bodily harm is dealt with under section 55. This section does not deal with slight bodily harm, but bodily harm which endangers the life of the President. Slight bodily harm cannot endanger any life by definition. However, if a slight bodily harm is inflicted on the President, and even though it is only slight, the President dies, then the offender shall be liable for the consequences under section 55. In the same way, if the harm inflicted on the person of the President is a grievous bodily harm but does not result in the endangering of the life of the President of Malta, then the offender is not liable under this section. This offence does not require any specific intent, but only the generic intent to cause harm; therefore, in the case of treason the onus of proof is lighter than it would be in any other case of wilful homicide. It is important that the offender wilfully commits the offence against the President of Malta and that he should know at the time of committing the offence that his victim is the President of Malta. The motive, as with most offences requiring dolus is irrelevant, and premeditation is not nec...