What are the opening hours?

Monday 09:00 - 17:00 Tuesday 09:00 - 17:00 Wednesday 09:00 - 17:00 Thursday 09:00 - 17:00 Friday 09:00 - 17:00

https://www.facebook.com/615875194938158/

LegisIuris, Birkirkara (2026)

06/05/2026

⚖️ “𝟏𝟐 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞, 𝟖 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝?” - 𝘼 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙬, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙩 👩🏻‍⚖️

Two judgments delivered within days of each other ignited a wave of public outrage, and understandably so.

📜 In ''The Republic of Malta vs Gordian Azuogu Ohaegbu'', of 29th April 2026, the Court dealt with offences dating back to 2007, where the accused was involved in the organised importation and distribution of over 1.7 kilograms of co***ne, valued at tens of thousands of euro. After nearly 19 years of proceedings, during which the accused was even awarded damages for unreasonable delay, the Court ultimately sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months imprisonment.

📜 Just one day earlier, in Il-Pulizija vs Mufarrih Shah, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed an 8-year prison sentence for a man convicted of repeated sexual acts on a 10-year-old child, including conduct amounting to corruption of a minor, sexual harassment, and coercive behaviour against a vulnerable victim.

Placed side by side, the question most of the general public asked themselves was the following: ''𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘨 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥?''

𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐚𝐭𝐭 𝐭𝐚’ 𝐚𝐤𝐤𝐮ż𝐚”: 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧

To understand this, one must begin not with the sentence, but with the charges.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙊𝙝𝙖𝙚𝙜𝙗𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚

📝 In the Ohaegbu case, the accused was indicted under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 101), particularly provisions relating to:
• trafficking and distribution (Article 22)
• aggravated and organised drug activity (Articles 22(3A), 22A)
• along with supporting provisions regulating possession, importation, and conspiracy

🌍 This legislative framework, originally enacted in 1939, has been continuously amended, most recently in 2023–2024, reflecting evolving international and European approaches to organised drug crime.

❌ Crucially, Article 22 provides for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, placing drug trafficking among the most severely punished offences in Maltese law.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙝𝙖𝙝 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚

📝 In contrast, the Shah case was prosecuted entirely under the Criminal Code (Chapter 9), a law dating back to 1854, albeit amended over time, most notably through reforms such as Act XIII of 2018, which modernised aspects of sexual offences.

The att ta’ akkuża in that case included:
• sexual acts without consent on a minor (Article 207)
• corruption of a minor under 12 (Article 203(1)(a))
• sexual harassment and coercive conduct (Articles 251A, 251H, 251HA)
• aggravating circumstances (Article 202, Article 208AC)

❗ While these provisions undoubtedly address grave wrongdoing, their maximum penalties are generally significantly lower, often ranging around 9 to 12 years imprisonment, depending on classification and aggravation.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠?

When these frameworks are placed side by side, a clear legal reality emerges:
💊Drug trafficking → maximum: life imprisonment
🔞Sexual offences against minors → generally capped at significantly lower ranges

This is not a judicial choice.

It is a legislative hierarchy of seriousness.

👩🏻‍⚖️ In other words, the law, as it currently stands, treats organised drug trafficking as one of the highest threats to society, warranting the harshest penalties available.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐲?

🌍 The answer lies in history and policy.

Over the past decades, drug trafficking has been treated as:
• a transnational, organised crime issue
• a driver of violence, exploitation, and systemic harm
• a matter of international and EU obligation

🚨 As a result, laws such as the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance have been repeatedly strengthened and modernised, with clear sentencing structures and severe penalties.

By contrast, sexual offences law, though amended, remains rooted in a much older legislative framework, where reforms have often been incremental rather than structural.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞

⚖️ It is tempting to look at these outcomes and conclude that something has gone wrong in court. However, judges do not sentence in a vacuum.

They are bound by:
• maximum and minimum penalties set by law
• the specific articles under which an accused is charged
• principles of proportionality and consistency

💊 In Ohaegbu, the Court was dealing with offences that legally allowed for life imprisonment, yet still reduced the sentence, partly due to the extraordinary 19-year delay not attributable to the accused.

❌In Shah, the Court applied the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and confirmed a sentence within the legal limits available to it.

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗲?

📌If the outcome feels uncomfortable, it is not because the courts have misplaced their priorities. It is because the law reflects priorities shaped over time, and those priorities may no longer fully align with societal expectations.

📌For years, sustained attention, policy pressure, and international cooperation have driven continuous reform in drug laws.

📌The same level of sustained pressure has not always been present in the context of sexual offences, particularly in ensuring that sentencing structures reflect their full gravity.

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠?

The comparison between these two cases is not meaningless, but it must be directed correctly.

❓The question is not: “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 12 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 8?

❓The question is: “𝘋𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦, 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 2026, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮?”

Because if we believe that offences against children should attract consistently harsher penalties, then the solution is not to criticise judicial discretion, but to recognise that: judges apply the law, they do not create it.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭

Public reaction, in this case, is not entirely misplaced.

It reveals a growing expectation that the law should evolve, not only in recognising harm, but in ranking it appropriately. And if that expectation is to be met, then the path forward is clear:

📢❗🚨 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.📢❗🚨

________________________________________________________

✒️ Author: Dr Catriona Cuschieri

28/01/2026

⚖️𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 “𝐒𝐞𝐱 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫” - 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐩𝐞 🚫 : 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬

📰 Headlines such as
“𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘳𝘭” are not neutral, they are factually and legally INCORRECT.

🧠Under Maltese law, a minor 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 consent to sexual activity with an adult. Consent is a legal concept, not a narrative device, and when the law removes the possibility of consent, there is no such thing as “sex” with a child.

❌ Any sexual act involving a minor under 16 is legally deemed r**e, regardless of appearances, behaviour, or alleged willingness.

📜 Article 198 of the Criminal Code defines r**e as ''non-consensual carnal connection, including vaginal, a**l, or oral pe*******on.'' The law clarifies that consent must be given voluntarily, as the result of a person’s free will, assessed in light of their emotional and psychological state. A child under 16 is legally incapable of giving such consent. The “voluntary free will” test can never be satisfied where the victim is a minor. Responsibility rests entirely on the adult, and the act is deemed non-consensual by operation of law.

📝 Recent Maltese cases highlight how seriously the courts treat sexual offences against minors. For instance, in 'Il-Puluzija vs. Raake Bjorn' and 'The Republic of Malta vs Sarath Babu Kongadan', adults were prosecuted for sexual offences i.e r**e, involving minors. Similarly, there was a case where a father was convicted of ra**ng both of his daughters.

In all these instances, specific details and names were not publicly released, to protect the privacy and wellbeing of the victims, a standard practice in Malta for cases involving minors. While this can make it challenging to quote public cases directly, the legal principle is clear: any sexual act involving a minor under 16 is always a criminal offence, and courts treat these matters with the utmost seriousness.

🏛️ The law has evolved over time to strengthen protections for minors.

The provisions of Article 198 date back to 1981, but as society and our understanding of sexual violence evolved, so too did the legal framework.

In 2021, Malta enacted the Various Laws relating to Sexual Offences and Matters relating to Minors (Amendment) Act (Act LXIV of 2021), modernising protections for minors, expanding juvenile court jurisdiction, and introducing procedural safeguards to better protect victims during criminal proceedings.

Further reforms followed in 2024, with amendments specifically aimed at protecting sexually abused minors. These reforms enhanced procedural protections, including audiovisual recording of testimony, and clarified that minors coerced into exploitative acts cannot themselves be prosecuted.

❗ These legislative updates did not change the age of consent, which remains 16, but underscore that the 1981 law alone was no longer sufficient to fully safeguard child victims, prompting continued legal evolution.

‼️ Words matter. Headlines framing sexual violence against minors as “sexual relations” imply equality, choice, and consent, concepts that Maltese law has rejected for decades and continues to reject with increasing force.

🚫 Anyone underage cannot consent.
❌ There is no “relationship.”
⚖️ There is only the criminal act of r**e, and the law keeps reinforcing that truth.
❗ The law is clear. Always.

____________________________________

✒️ Author: Dr Catriona Cuschieri

22/01/2026

🧠 𝙏𝙝𝙚 '𝙄𝙧-𝙍𝙚𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙖 𝙩𝙖' 𝙈𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙖 𝙫𝙨 𝙎𝙩𝙚𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙖' 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙚 - 𝙂𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙩𝙮 𝙑𝙚𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙣𝙤 𝙅𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙏𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙀𝙓𝙋𝙇𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙀𝘿

Yesterday, 21 January 2026, Judge Consuelo-Pilar Scerri Herrera addressed the jury for one final time at approximately 13:30, before the jury began their final deliberation. After around 10 hours of deliberation, the verdict was returned just before midnight: guilty by 8–1, but excused. After midnight, the sentence was announced, imposing 2 years imprisonment, suspended for four years (meaning no immediate prison time), in addition to a 5-year suspension of the fi***rm licence, a €3,000 fine, and an order to pay all court expenses.

So yes, in simple terms: Caruana was found guilty, but he was also excused (importantly, not justified), and due to the sentence given he will not step foot in jail.

Complex, right? Indeed. The verdict and sentence have sparked many online questions about homicide, self-defence, and how the law treats these concepts.

Let’s break it all down 🧩
________________________________________

👮‍♂️⛓️‍💥🚨 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭?

📌 Picture this:

It is a regular Thursday evening, except that you get woken up by a noise in your upstairs bedroom in your own home.

The owners of said home, Romina and Stephen Caruana, are a married couple with children. Except that the same ‘wife’ is having an affair, and the same ‘noise’ coming from upstairs is from her lover.

So basically, what started with a secret affair ended with a fatal shooting.

❓𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲?

So, on 18 December 2008, Romina invited her lover, Neville Baldacchino, into the house late at night for a sexual rendezvous.

While Stephen and the children were asleep downstairs, Romina and Baldacchino went upstairs to the bedroom where they had sexual relations. After they finished, Romina went downstairs to essentially make sure that ‘the coast was clear’ and all family was asleep, so that Baldacchino could leave without being noticed.

However, Stephen, who was a light sleeper, heard a noise coming from upstairs, woke up, grabbed his fi***rm, went upstairs, encountered Baldacchino near the terrace, and shot him four times.

Three shots hit the victim, while one missed.

Neville Baldacchino dies as a result.

Police arrive and Caruana does not deny anything and admits he fired the shots and that he killed Baldacchino.
Investigation commences and court charges unfold:
________________________________________

⚖️𝐊𝐚𝐩 𝐭’𝐀𝐤𝐤𝐮ż𝐢 (𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬)

1. Willful homicide
This is the most serious charge. It means the prosecution argued that Caruana intentionally killed Baldacchino.

2. Illegal use of a fi***rm
This charge relates to the fact that a fi***rm was used in the commission of the act.

3. Discharging a fi***rm in a residential area
This charge relates to the location of the shooting, inside a home, where other people (in this case, the children) were present. It also reflects that the fi***rm was discharged outside the conditions of the licence, since it was fired in a residential setting.
________________________________________

⚖️𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐬 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲

Before delving deep into the possible defences & possible verdicts, we must make a clear distinction between Voluntary Homicide, Excusable Homicide and Justifiable Homicide, under Maltese Law.

A. Justifiable Homicide ✅

- This is not a crime at all.
- The law accepts that the person acted lawfully, usually in legitimate self-defence (Article 223 of the Criminal Code).

There is no criminal responsibility and no punishment.

👉 In simple terms: the law says you had justifiable reasons to do this.

--------------------

B. Excusable Homicide ⚠️

- This is a crime, but the law recognises that the circumstances reduce blame.

- The accused is still guilty, but factors such as:
• excessive self-defence,
• sudden passion,
• fear or fright,
mean the punishment is reduced or suspended (Articles 227–228 of Criminal Code).

👉 In simple terms: the law says you went too far, but we understand why.

--------------------

C. Involuntary Homicide 🔹

- This happens when a person causes death without intending to kill.
- The act is still criminal, but the death results from negligence or recklessness, not intention.

👉 In simple terms: the law says you did not mean to kill, but your actions caused a death.

--------------------

🧠 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞

• Justifiable = no crime
• Excusable = crime, but reduced blame
• Involuntary = no intention to kill

________________________________________

🧩𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞?

In light of the charges, together with the only plausible and legally viable defences available, the following six outcomes are envisaged as the only possible verdicts:

1. Guilty of voluntary homicide
This means the jury would have believed the homicide was intentional and not justified.

2. Not guilty of voluntary homicide
This means that the jury did not believe the homicide was done intentionally.

3. Not guilty because of self-defence
This is the “justified” option: the killing is considered lawful because the accused was defending himself.

4. Guilty due to excessive self-defence
This applies where the jury believes the accused was acting in self-defence, but exceeded the limits allowed by law. The force used was considered disproportionate, and not attributable to fear, fright, or being taken unawares.

5. Guilty of excessive self-defence with fear, fright, or being taken unawares.

This applies where the jury believes the accused exceeded the limits of lawful self-defence, but did so while acting under fear, shock, or surprise. The killing remains criminal, however the law recognises that the excess was not deliberate, making the act excusable and allowing for a reduced or suspended punishment.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞.

6. Sudden passion

This applies where the killing is committed under an immediate state of intense emotional shock or provocation, rendering the accused incapable of reflection at the time of the act. The killing remains criminal, but the law treats it as a reduced form of guilt, leading to a lesser punishment.
________________________________________

🔥 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬)

The major missing detail in most public discussions is that during a trial by jury, the jury does not merely choose between “Guilty” or “Not guilty”, it must assess each and every possible facet provided for by Law;

✅Bottom line? It was concluded that:
- There was self-defence, but
- It was excessive, and
- The killing was therefore still a crime, but
- the circumstances justified an excused verdict.

Why? That is a form of Excusable Homicide contemplated within the Criminal Code.

This is sometimes called:

🔹 “Homicide through excessive self-defence with fear, fright, or being taken unawares” :

the act is guilty, but the surrounding circumstances:
i. stranger man in your home late at night,
ii. being in a state of fear for your life,
significantly reduce culpability.

________________________________________

🎯 𝐒𝐨 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐚𝐢𝐥?

A guilty but excusable verdict means punishment is mitigated = because the self-defence was deemed excessive but excusable (as explained above):

• Caruana received a two-year prison sentence, but it was suspended for four years, meaning he won’t go to jail unless he breaches certain conditions within that time.
• He was also fined €3,000 for illegal fi***rm use and had his fi***rm licence suspended for four years.

________________________________________

📌 𝐀 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫

This article is not written to say whether the verdict was right or wrong. That is not its purpose.

What it is meant to show is that criminal law, especially homicide and self-defence under Maltese law, is not black or white. Verdicts are not reached based on emotion, public opinion, or what feels fair, but on legal principles, statutory provisions, and evidence.

The jury was bound by the Criminal Code, by the specific articles regulating homicide, self-defence, and by the evidence actually produced in court. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence: there was no dispute that Baldacchino died, or that Caruana shot him, but the decisive question was how, why, and with what mental state.

Crucially, the onus of proof lies on he who alleges, meaning the prosecution. If intent to kill could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the defence did not need to prove innocence outright. It only needed to raise reasonable doubt and steer the jury toward the most legally plausible alternative explanation supported by the facts.

That is how jury trials function. That is how criminal responsibility is assessed.

So, once the legal framework is properly understood, the distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, excusable and justifiable homicide, and the narrow lines separating them, the jury’s task becomes clearer, even if the outcome remains controversial.

Having now seen what the jury had to decide between, the legal tools they were bound by, and the standards of proof they had to apply:

👉 Do you agree with the verdict?
👉 And do you agree with the sentence imposed by the court?

________________________________________

𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫: 𝐃𝐫. 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚 𝐂𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐢

Address

Birkirkara

Opening Hours

Monday	09:00 - 17:00
Tuesday	09:00 - 17:00
Wednesday	09:00 - 17:00
Thursday	09:00 - 17:00
Friday	09:00 - 17:00

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when LegisIuris posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

LegisIuris

06/05/2026

28/01/2026

22/01/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request