After weeks of hearing evidence, the jurors return with their verdict. The accused is found not guilty. You are told how many jurors voted for acquittal, but not exactly why they reached that conclusion. Was the evidence insufficient? Did the jurors doubt an important witness? Was there a particular element of the crime that the prosecution failed to prove? You may never know.
This does not mean that the verdict was incorrect. In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and an accused person is entitled to be acquitted when that standard is not met. But the recent experiences raise a legitimate question about our justice system: should some of the most serious criminal cases continue to be decided by ordinary citizens who are not required to explain their reasoning?
Following two high-profile acquittals in Malta, it may be time to explore a question that other European countries have already answered in different ways. What would happen if we replaced our traditional jury system?
First, how does Malta’s jury system work?
On 1 November 2026, a jury acquitted former soldier Lorin Scicluna of the murder of Lassana Cisse, who was shot dead in Ħal Far in April 2019. The eight-to-one verdict also cleared Scicluna of attempted murder, although he was found guilty of other offences. Two months earlier, another jury had acquitted businessman Yorgen Fenech of complicity and conspiracy in the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. That decision was also reached by eight votes to one.
These verdicts have prompted questions about whether Malta’s jury system is functioning as it should. Yet before deciding whether it needs to change, we need to understand what the system actually does.
In Malta, serious criminal trials traditionally take place before a judge and nine jurors. The judge controls the proceedings, rules on legal questions and explains the relevant law. However, the decision on whether the accused is guilty rests with the jurors. At least six of the nine must agree for a valid verdict.
The system separates two responsibilities. The judge explains the law, while the jury decides what the evidence proves. Importantly, the jury does not normally produce a written explanation of its reasoning. This means that even when a case involves complicated forensic evidence, contradictory testimonies or difficult questions about criminal intent, the final verdict may be expressed simply as guilty or not guilty.
This arrangement partly rests on the idea known as the wisdom of the crowd: that collective judgment can sometimes be more accurate than individual expertise. Different jurors bring different perspectives and can challenge one another’s assumptions. But this principle has limits. Nine people without specialist knowledge do not automatically become experts simply by reaching a decision together, particularly when assessing complex forensic evidence or questions of criminal intent.
But Malta is not alone in relying on ordinary citizens. The important difference is that other countries have developed alternative ways for citizens and judges to work together.
| Model | Who decides guilt? | Main distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Malta: Traditional jury | 9 citizens | Jurors decide separately from the judge; no detailed explanation of their votes |
| Germany: Mixed court | Typically 3 professional judges + 2 citizens for murder trials | Judges and citizens deliberate and vote together |
| France: Mixed court | 3 judges + 6 citizens for major criminal cases | Joint deliberations and a formal statement of reasons |
| France: Professional panel | 5 professional judges for specified serious offences | No citizen jury; different categories of offences use different courts |
| Spain: Structured jury | 9 citizens, with a presiding judge | Jurors answer specific factual questions and explain the basis of their findings |
Option 1: The German system, where judges and citizens decide together
One possibility would be to introduce a system similar to Germany’s, where professional judges and ordinary citizens sit together to decide criminal cases.
For serious offences such as murder, a German regional criminal court generally consists of five members: three professional judges and two ordinary citizens, known as lay judges or Schöffen. Unlike in Malta, the citizens do not leave the courtroom to decide the case separately. All five members take part in the deliberations.
To understand how this works, imagine that Malta adopted the German model for a murder trial. Instead of nine citizens deciding guilt after receiving legal instructions from a judge, three judges and two citizens would examine the evidence together. They would discuss whether the witnesses were credible, whether the forensic evidence supported the prosecution’s case, and whether the legal requirements for murder had been established.
The important distinction is that ordinary citizens would no longer have to assess the case entirely without the participation of legal professionals in their deliberations. The judges would bring their training and experience, while the citizens would contribute perspectives from outside the judiciary.
German lay judges have voting rights alongside professional judges. They are not simply observers or advisers. For decisions against an accused person concerning guilt or punishment, German law generally requires a two-thirds majority. In a five-member court, that means at least four votes.
This creates an interesting safeguard. Neither the three professional judges acting alone nor the two lay judges acting alone can secure a conviction.
There are potential weaknesses. Professional judges may influence the discussion more heavily because of their expertise and authority. An ordinary citizen might hesitate to disagree with three experienced judges, even when they have legitimate doubts about the evidence.
Nevertheless, the German approach offers Malta a possible middle ground: retain public participation while involving trained judges directly in the decision-making process.
Option 2: The French system, where the most serious crimes are decided by judges and jurors together
France offers another model, although its approach differs from Germany’s.
For major criminal cases heard before the cour d’assises, the court consists of three professional judges and six randomly selected citizens. Together, they decide whether the accused is guilty and what punishment should follow.
Imagine a murder trial in Malta under this arrangement. Instead of a single judge overseeing nine jurors, three judges would sit alongside six citizens. They would hear the same evidence and participate in the final deliberations together.
For a conviction at first instance, French law requires at least seven of the nine members to agree. This is a particularly significant detail. Even if all three professional judges supported a conviction, they would still need the agreement of at least four ordinary citizens.
France therefore retains a strong element of citizen participation while ensuring that professional judges contribute to deliberations.
The French system also offers something especially relevant to Malta’s current debate: a way to explain decisions. Its criminal courts use a formal statement setting out the main elements that persuaded the court when deciding guilt.
For victims’ families, such reasoning can make a significant difference. An acquittal may still be deeply disappointing, but a reasoned decision can help explain which elements of the prosecution’s case were not established.
There is another important French reform worth considering. Since January 2023, France has operated departmental criminal courts composed of five professional judges, without citizen jurors, for specified crimes punishable by 15 or 20 years’ imprisonment. The most serious crimes, including those potentially carrying life imprisonment, generally remain within the jurisdiction of the cour d’assises.
France therefore has two different arrangements depending on the type and seriousness of the case. Malta could explore a comparable distinction rather than applying one model to every serious criminal trial.
Option 3: Professional judges only, with no jury whatsoever
A more substantial reform would be to remove juries from some or all serious criminal trials and allow professional judges to determine guilt.
Under such a system, a murder case could be heard by a panel of three judges rather than nine ordinary citizens. Each judge would examine the evidence, assess the witnesses and participate in the final decision.
One advantage is that the individuals deciding the case would have substantial legal training and experience. They would be accustomed to dealing with complicated evidence, understanding criminal intent and applying the high standard of proof required for a conviction.
Another potential advantage is transparency. A panel of judges could produce a written judgment explaining why particular witnesses were believed, which evidence was decisive and why the prosecution did or did not establish guilt.
This would give both the accused and victims’ families a clearer understanding of the outcome. A reasoned judgment would also provide an identifiable basis for reviewing possible legal errors.
However, abolishing juries carries risks. It would remove ordinary citizens from an important part of the criminal justice process and concentrate greater responsibility in the professional judiciary. Judges are not immune to bias, mistakes or institutional pressures.
For that reason, a three-judge panel may be preferable to relying on one judge alone in particularly serious cases. It would introduce discussion between legal professionals and reduce the influence of any single individual’s judgment.
Interestingly, Malta has already moved partly in this direction. Article 436 of the Criminal Code allows an accused person in qualifying cases to choose trial before a judge without a jury. However, the law contains exceptions, including where life imprisonment is demanded.
The question is whether Malta should go further and establish multi-judge panels for certain categories of serious criminal cases.
Option 4: Keep juries, but require them to explain their decisions, as in Spain
Perhaps Malta does not need to abolish juries at all. Instead, it could reform how they reach and communicate their decisions.
Spain provides an interesting example.
Like Malta, Spain uses nine ordinary citizens in certain criminal trials. A professional judge presides over the proceedings, but the jury determines the relevant facts and guilt.
The difference is that Spanish jurors must work through a structured set of questions. Instead of simply deciding whether someone is guilty or not guilty, they consider specific factual allegations and identify which have been proved.
The voting rules are also different. Seven votes are required for a finding of guilt, while five votes are sufficient for a finding of not guilty.
More importantly, the jury must produce a record of its decision that includes a concise explanation of the evidence supporting its conclusions.
Consider how this might work in a Maltese murder trial. Jurors could be asked whether the prosecution had established that the accused was present at the scene, whether the accused participated in the criminal act, and whether the necessary criminal intent had been proved.
These would not simply be questions about what the jurors believed happened. They would help identify which essential elements of the offence had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The distinction matters. Someone may have been present during a murder without necessarily being legally responsible for it. Likewise, suspicion or association with another accused person is not automatically sufficient to prove guilt.
A structured verdict could make the jury’s reasoning easier to understand and reduce uncertainty about why an accused person was convicted or acquitted.
This option would preserve Malta’s existing principle of trial by one’s peers while making the process more transparent. It would not, however, guarantee correct decisions, and jurors would still need to assess complicated evidence without professional judges participating directly in their deliberations.
Which system would actually deliver better justice?
The temptation following controversial acquittals is to assume that professional judges would reach better decisions than ordinary citizens. But that is not necessarily true.
Legal qualifications provide knowledge and experience, but they do not eliminate human error. A judge can misinterpret evidence, place too much confidence in a witness or reach an incorrect conclusion. Equally, a jury can identify reasonable doubts that might otherwise be overlooked.
Nor should Malta judge the success of its justice system solely by the number of convictions it delivers. A justice system that imprisons innocent people is not more effective merely because its conviction rate is higher.
The challenge is to improve the quality of decisions while maintaining the safeguards that protect the accused.
There is also a practical consideration. If an acquittal results from an inadequate investigation, missing evidence or a prosecution that fails to establish the necessary elements of an offence, replacing jurors with professional judges will not necessarily change the outcome.
Reforming juries is therefore not a substitute for improving investigations and prosecutions.
Nevertheless, the international examples demonstrate that Malta has several choices. It could replace traditional juries with mixed courts, introduce panels of professional judges, or retain juries while requiring more structured and transparent verdicts.
Each alternative involves trade-offs between professional expertise, citizen participation, transparency and judicial independence.
What would make sense for Malta?
Rather than beginning with a decision to abolish juries, Malta could begin by asking what problems it wants to solve.
If the concern is that ordinary citizens struggle to assess complex evidence, a German-style mixed court could provide professional expertise during deliberations. If the concern is that decisions are insufficiently explained, Spain’s structured verdict system offers a different solution. If the priority is to have experienced legal professionals decide technically demanding cases, a panel of judges similar to those used in France could be considered.
These reforms are not mutually exclusive. Malta could retain traditional juries for certain offences, introduce mixed tribunals for particularly serious cases and allow professional judicial panels to hear others.
The country could also consider making reasoned verdicts a more central part of criminal justice, regardless of who decides the case.
Such reforms would require careful legal examination and proper safeguards. They should not be adopted simply because particular verdicts have angered the public. They should be assessed according to whether they improve fairness, reliability and confidence in the administration of justice.
For someone who has lost a loved one, no procedural reform can guarantee the outcome they hope for. And no justice system can legitimately promise a conviction before the evidence has been examined.
But a justice system should be capable of explaining its decisions and demonstrating that they were reached through a fair and reliable process.
The question facing Malta is not whether nine ordinary citizens can deliver justice. Other European countries have shown that there are alternatives. Perhaps Malta should begin examining them more seriously.