The Attorney General’s office asked the court to impose the maximum sentence on Lorin Scicluna. The judge then explained that the prosecution had got that maximum wrong.At sentencing on Thursday, Judge Natasha Galea Sciberras explained that the racially aggravated offence of grievously injuring May Malimi carried a maximum punishment of 12 years. The indictment had increased the punishment by only one degree instead of two, specifying nine years. The judge said she was bound by that limit.Scicluna received eight years, below that ceiling. The indictment had nevertheless restricted the judge’s options. That is a basic failure of preparation for which the Attorney General should account.It comes barely two months after Yorgen Fenech’s acquittal in the trial over Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. Scicluna has also been acquitted of murdering Lassana Cisse. These were two of the most important tests of public confidence in Maltese justice in recent years.During Fenech’s 55-day trial, Victoria Buttigieg was not seen in the courtroom. The country’s chief prosecutor was not a visible presence at its most high-profile prosecution. That absence deserves a proper explanation.It leaves open the question of what supervision took place behind the scenes. How closely did Buttigieg follow the preparation of the case? Which major decisions did she review? What support did the lawyers carrying it receive from the head of their office? These are questions she should be able to answer.There is a public dimension to leadership too. An Attorney General should understand the significance of being visibly engaged when her office handles a case of such national importance. Her presence would have signalled that the prosecution had the attention of the institution’s leadership. When that presence is missing, the public is entitled to ask why.The role requires gravitas. The public should see someone firmly in command, with a serious grasp of the work and the authority to insist on high standards. Running a tight ship means knowing how major cases are prepared, ensuring difficult decisions receive proper scrutiny and taking responsibility when the office falls short.That authority has to be earned through competence and judgement. A prosecution service judged by its results should be able to demonstrate the quality of its legal work and show what changes when errors occur. Its leader should be capable of giving clear answers about both.The public interest in those answers is obvious. The prosecution of a journalist’s murder and a case involving racist violence test the state’s ability to deal with crimes whose consequences reach far beyond those immediately involved. The person leading that work should be prepared to account for how it is done.Weaknesses in the legal preparation of prosecutions predate Buttigieg’s appointment. That history makes the demand for improvement more urgent. An inherited indictment still needs a fresh review before trial. An office that has encountered defects before should be able to show how it now catches them.Buttigieg was the first Attorney General appointed after the 2019 separation of the AG and State Advocate offices. The government’s civil and advisory legal work passed to the State Advocate, giving the AG’s office a clearer focus on criminal prosecution. She took over in September 2020. Six years later, the public is entitled to ask what that reform has delivered.The office’s responsibilities have expanded as more prosecution work has moved from the police. Prosecutions rose from 492 in 2024 to 578 in 2025, and recruitment continued, with 77 prosecutors employed by March 2026. The question is whether experience, supervision and preparation time have kept pace with the workload.The office’s own five-year plan promises better ways of managing cases, improved training and clearer measures of performance. Those commitments should be visible in the reliability of its work. More cases and more lawyers increase the need for effective checks.It is 2026. Searchable legislation, shared case files and recorded reviews should make routine checking easier. Prosecuting serious crime will always require experience and judgement. Getting the applicable penalty right should be a basic requirement.The police’s role also deserves scrutiny, particularly where powerful interests are involved. The 2021 public inquiry into Caruana Galizia’s assassination found that a climate of impunity originating at the highest levels of government had spread to institutions including the police. Any serious assessment of a prosecution must examine the quality and independence of the investigation behind it.Within the AG’s office, the Scicluna error gives Buttigieg something concrete to address. Has she ordered an internal review? Who was responsible for checking the indictment, and why was the mistake not corrected before sentencing? Will other files be examined for the same problem?The preparation and supervision of these major prosecutions should also be reviewed. The office should establish whether its trial teams had sufficient experience and support, and whether important strategic decisions received the attention they deserved. Where resources were inadequate, the review should identify what was requested and what was provided.Prosecutors themselves have an interest in that scrutiny. Serious cases place heavy demands on the lawyers carrying them. A fair review must examine the conditions in which they worked and the decisions taken above them. Responsibility should follow the evidence about who prepared, checked and supervised the work.The public should then be told what the review found about the running of the office and what will change. Confidential material and ongoing proceedings can be protected while management findings and corrective action are explained. Defending the professionalism of staff is compatible with examining whether the systems around them are good enough.Victoria Buttigieg should explain her role in the Fenech prosecution and say what is being done about the Scicluna error. Answering those questions is part of the job.•