MaltaToday previous editions

MALTATODAY 17 July 2019 Midweek

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1143328

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 2 of 23

maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 17 JULY 2019 3 NEWS MATTHEW AGIUS THE Planning Authority acted illegally when removing a ban- ner placed on Old Bakery Street by the family of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the court has ruled. In a judgment slamming the authority, the court ruled there was no basis at law to remove the banner and the action breached the family's right to freedom of expression. Caruana Galizia's heirs were awarded €5,000 each in dam- ages. The First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction was critical of the manner in which the authority operated, highlighting the lack of a paper trail in the decision-making pro- cess. The widower and three sons of assassinated journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia had filed a con- stitutional court case against the Planning Authority over the removal of banners placed on a private property in Old Bakery Street in Valletta in March and April of last year. The family asked the constitu- tional court to declare the Plan- ning Authority's interpretation of the law and, separately, the re- moval of banners from a private property as unjustified interfer- ence, being disproportionate and not befitting a democratic society and, as such, in violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case also called for effec- tive and appropriate remedies to replace the banners as they were before the violation and for the authority pay fair compensation. The case goes back to 31 March 2018 when Caruana Galizia's husband and three sons hung a banner on a private property in Old Bakery Street. A few days later, on 3 April, an order was affixed to the property for the banner to be removed due to an alleged breach of plan- ning laws and, on 7 April, the banner was removed by persons then unknown. At the time, the plaintiffs were not aware that the banner had actually been removed by the au- thorities and they had proceeded to file a police report for stolen property. Then, on 15 April, the plain- tiffs hung another banner on the property's façade. This second banner was re- moved without warning less than 12 hours after it was hung, "presumably by the defendants [the Planning Authority]," the heirs argued. The court, presided over by Madam Justice Lorraine Schem- bri Orland, who held her last sit- ting today before taking up her post at the European Court of Human Rights, noted that the enforcement report was treated as an urgent matter by the au- thority. Charles Gafa, principal direct action officer at the PA, testified that the instructions to remove the banners came from his man- agers. He then said decisions for di- rect action were taken by him after they would have been dis- cussed with others. Asked why the urgency in this case, he said that where bill- boards are concerned that have certain types of messages, the authority considers them as ur- gent. He said they do not look at the content, and that if it is illegal they remove it. He said that for him, the bill- board contained a message not an advert. Asked who took the decision for direct action to be taken, he said that he took it after discuss- ing the case with the Executive Chairman, Johann Buttigieg, and with his directors. He confirmed that it was Butti- gieg who gave him instructions regarding the billboard, and eve- ry billboard around Malta. He had argued that many re- ports on the banner had come in. However, the court did not agree with the Planning Author- ity's interpretation of the law and how it acted. The court argued that in the banner, there was no advert, and thus the Planning Authority had no legal right to remove the ban- ner in the first place. The court noted that enforce- ment was not carried out with the backing of the law, and was done through the incorrect ap- plication of laws. The court noted that this emerged from Jo- hann Buttigieg's testimony who said that a few months after he was appointed CEO, he gave a general direction that triggered an enforcement mechanism, and noted that this was not drafted in writing and that there are no guidelines regarding its interpretation. The court also noted that there were some specific meetings about this particular message in- dicating that this case was more specifically addressed by the au- thority. The court concluded that the actions of the authority went further than the mandate given to the authority by the legislator, and resulted in the effective cen- sorship of private citizens, and constituted as a violation of the plaintiffs' rights. The court also noted that vague and not proven references to reports and complaints on so- cial media, or from unidentified members of the public, aren't to be given any importance., and that even if there were com- plaints a democratic society is not led by mob rule, but on prin- ciples that give the highest pro- tection to political expression. The court found that there was no pressing social need for the removal of the banners. As a remedy, the court ordered the authority to pay each one of the plaintiffs €5,000. PA breached Daphne Caruana Galizia heirs' freedom of expression in banners' removal CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Assisted by an interpreter, Bah told the court he came to Malta because his friend told him that the people were "friendly and there wasn't any racism". On the night of the incident, he had left home to watch a Real Madrid football match at an EZBet shop in Birżebbuġa. On his way back, Bah and a friend were attacked after two former soldiers went on a shooting spree in the ru- ral road between Hal Far and Birżebbuġa. Francesco Fenech, 21, and Lorin Scicluna, 22, both for- mer Armed Forces of Malta soldiers, stand charged with killing Souleymane, as well as the attempted murder of two other persons who were walk- ing back home in Ħal Far back in April. The men deny the charges of what is believed to be Malta's first racially-motivated murder. The compilation of evidence against the accused continued yesterday. Bah was unable to recall how many shots he heard. "I felt something hit my backside. I pulled down my trousers and saw a bullet wound," he told the court. "The car stopped and then they shot and I turned around. They shot at me and contin- ued on their way." Fenech is believed to have pulled the trigger on 42-year- old Souleymane while Sciclu- na drove the vehicle. The men have also been charged with the attempted murder of another man from Chad in February. The two soldiers were sus- pended from their duties following a special order by President George Vella. An in- ternal inquiry is ongoing. Lawyer Giannella de Marco is appearing for Francesco Fene- ch while Kris Busietta, Julian Farrugia and Franco Debono appear for Lorin Scicluna. In- spectors Keith Arnaud and Trevor Micallef are prosecut- ing. Arthur Azzopardi is parte civile for the victim's family. Magistrate Ian Farrugia is presiding. Shooting survivor unable to recall how many shots he heard One of the banners removed by the PA Francesco Fenech and Lorin Scicluna Lassana Cisse Souleymane murder

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of MaltaToday previous editions - MALTATODAY 17 July 2019 Midweek