Legal Review: Here’s Why Jeremie Camilleri May Not Have Been Charged With Femicide
Last week was a terrible one in local current affairs due to the shocking events that led to the death of a young Turkish woman, Pelin Kaya.
The story has dominated headlines, and with good reason. Her death was particularly gruesome, as evidenced by a macabre video that made the rounds on social media.
One question that is being asked by some is why the police didn’t charge the accused individual, Jeremie Camilleri, with femicide under the recently introduced provisions in the Criminal Code.
This question merits some discussion.
The family of Pelin Kaya in Malta after her murder
Firstly, from a procedural perspective, it is important to understand that the new provisions do not establish femicide as a distinct offence as such. The offence was, and remains, wilful homicide, which is defined as maliciously, with intent to kill or to put the life of a person in manifest jeopardy, causing the death of such person.
The nuance around femicide is introduced when it comes to the sentencing of the person who is convicted of the wilful homicide. Article 211A of the Criminal Code provides that where wilful homicide has been committed against a person of the female gender, then the court shall, in establishing the punishment, give due consideration to whether the homicide or attempted homicide:
(a) was the result of violence committed by an intimate partner with whom the victim was or is still in a relationship or of whom the victim is the spouse or former spouse; or
(b) resulted from violence by a member or members of the family; or
(c) was committed for misogynist motives; or
(d) was committed for reasons of honour of the perpetrator, or of family reputation, or for reasons related to religious or cult belief or practices; or
(e) was committed due to motives based on the gender, or gender identity, or sex or sexual orientation of the victim; or
(f) was committed as a result of sexual violence or of acts of a sexual nature; or
(g) was committed due to the victim being involved in prostitution, or being subjected to sexual exploitation or being the victim of human trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation.
Pelin Kaya with her former colleagues
What the above tells us is that just because the victim of the crime happens to be female, it does not necessarily mean that the offense is femicide (at least not in legal terms).
For the crime to legally be deemed femicide under our law, at least one of the above criteria needs to be fulfilled.
So, why hasn’t femicide been referred to in the charges brought against the alleged perpetrator in this case? It seems that in this case, the prosecution would need to prove that the homicide was committed for misogynist motives, due to the victim being of the female gender, or as a result of sexual violence or of acts of a sexual nature. It could be that the police do not currently have sufficient evidence to prove any of these motives beyond a reasonable doubt.
In practical terms, this could have little bearing on the outcome of the case. Wilful homicide already carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Our law is quite clear in that regard. Article 211 of the Criminal Code unequivocally states:
“Whosoever shall be guilty of wilful homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for life.”
But this doesn’t mean that the provisions on femicide are pointless or without effect. Indeed, whilst our law generally provides that wilful homicide is excusable in some instances, such as for so-called crimes of “sudden passion or mental excitement” that would cloud one’s judgment, our law specifically provides that no such excuse may be brought forward in the context of femicide in terms of Article 211A.
It is in this light that the provisions on femicide become truly effective.
Luca Amato is a senior associate at Fenech & Fenech Advocates.
Do you think the charges levelled at Jeremie Camilleri are appropriate? Sound off in the comments below