25/04/1949

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (INFERIOR)

HARDING WILLIAM

THE POLICE vs ALFRED W. LUCK ET.

N/A

-

N/A

ACTIVE FORCE - ART. 94 AND 95 (B), 353 (D), AND 632 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE - ASSAULT AND RESISTANCE, OR THREAT, TO PUBLIC OFFICERS - EVIDENCE OF A CO-DEFENDANT - VIOLENCE

The Maltese Law considers as incompetent to give evidence (except on his own behalf) anyone chargedwith the same offence in respect of which his deposition is required, unless the proceedings againsthim are put an end to. And this rule applies in an absolute way, without any distinction as to whether he is called as a witness for the Prosecution or for another defendant. An assault is constituted by any attempt to apply unlawful force to another, or any threat which is accompanied by, or consists of, any act or gesture showing a present intent to use unlawful force, and is also accompaniedby a present ability to carry the threat into execution. The throwing of stones, if the person aimed at is missed, is an assault. The assault must be made by violence or active force; by "active force" being meant any hostile act calculated to hurt such person; so that more threats or insulting words are not sufficient for the purpose of this crime. If the act incriminated is only a threat consisting in an act at such a distance that the treat could in point of fact be carried out against persons lawfully charged with a public duty, and meant to intimidate them in the discharge of their duty, the act does not constitute an assault, but it constitutes the minor offence of threat to publicofficers. There is nothing unlawful if a police officer uses that "modicum" of force that is necessary by the acts of the aggressor, so that the fact that the aggresser, as a result of the use of that force used by the police officer, suffers same injury, would not appear to be material in his defence.