Aquilina Has Been Deemed Insane By Experts – What Does This Mean For The Paulina Dembska Murder Case?
Abner Aquilina, the man charged with the murder and rape of Paulina Dembska, was declared to have been insane at the time of the act and was unfit to stand trial. But what does this mean in the grand scheme of Malta’s legal system?
Yesterday morning, the magistrate presiding over the case followed a report by three court-appointed experts, who said Aquilina was mentally unfit to stand trial at this stage.
Psychiatrists Anthony Dimech, Anton Grech, and George Debono were questioned about Aquilina’s mental state and if Aquilina was mentally sound during the criminal act. And together they concluded that he was probably in a severe state of psychosis at the time.
This now means that the ball has fallen in the court of Malta’s Attorney General, Victoria Buttigieg. And she has three working days to revert, whilst Aquilina remains detained in Mount Carmel Hospital.
What are the options?
Lovin Malta spoke with lawyer and PN MP Joe Giglio, who outlined two potential ways forward, as the case rolls on.
In the event that the AG does not agree with Aquilina’s psychiatric evaluation, she can send back the acts of proceedings to court and ask for a further compilation of evidence, where the issue of insanity will be decided along with the case.
Alternatively, the AG can proceed with an insanity trial (referred to as a ġurin), where it would fall upon jurors to decide if they are, or are not, in agreement with the psychiatric evaluation.
It is termed ‘ġurin‘ because the case, in this context, does not decide on guilt, but rather on whether Aquilina was indeed insane, or not.
Under normal circumstances, a majority of six would be enough to decide the outcome, however in the context of ‘insanity’, a majority of five jurors would be enough.
The court must prove that Aquilina had a ‘guilty mind’ at the time of the act
Lovin Malta previously reported on what goes on in the event of an insanity plea in Malta’s courts. You can stay informed by clicking here.
Under Maltese law, a person is exempt from criminal responsibility if they were in a state of insanity at the time the offence was committed. It is a long-standing legal mechanism that has been used before both in Malta and abroad.
This does not mean that someone who claims insanity is free from trial, as it will be up to them and the court to prove their claims to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.
Uncertainty pervades the case, following Aquilina’s assessment by the medical experts appointed by the court.
What do you make of the latest developments in this case?