Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1389773
2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella mvella@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 4 JULY 2021 A 'get-out-of-jail' card for cowboy developers Editorial THERE can be no doubt that the lenient sentence hand- ed down to two architects – found guilty of causing the death of Miriam Pace on 2 March 2020 – was a slap in the face of those who expected justice from this case. Pace, a 54-year-old mother of two, was buried un- der the rubble of her own Santa Venera home: which collapsed due to excavation works carried out next door. The architects responsible for that develop- ment – 37-year-old architect Roderick Camilleri of Rabat, and Perit Anthony Mangion of Gżira, 73 – were both charged with negligently causing Pace's death in 2020. Under Maltese law, involuntary homicide carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for not more than four years. Yet in his 98-page judgment on the case, Magistrate Joe Mifsud – despite finding both defend- ants guilty of involuntary homicide, and even observing that they had "betrayed their oath of appointment as ar- chitects" – chose to forgo prison altogether, in favour of community service. Camilleri was sentenced to 480 hours of commu- nity service and a €10,000 fine, while Mangion was sentenced to 400 hours of community service and an €8,000 fine. Considering that the Maltese law-courts routinely hand down far more severe punishments, even for rela- tively far less serious crimes, one can only question the reasoning that led to such a paltry sentence in this par- ticular case: more so when the magistrate himself out- lined the severity of the crime in the same ruling. Among other things, Mifsud noted that – apart from Miriam Pace herself, and her family – Maltese society as a whole also had to be numbered among the victims. It is a point that this newspaper had also raised edito- rially at the time: the house that collapsed in Santa Ven- era last year, did not only kill the unfortunate occupant who was in it at the time. It also shattered the peace of mind of everyone living in close proximity to construc- tion and development; whilst also exacerbating the feel- ing of helplessness that ordinary people have when con- fronted by the sheer power of Malta's well-connected construction lobby. Remarkably, the magistrate himself even used the word 'cowboys' – in the purely Maltese sense, denoting a combination of irresponsibility, impunity and lack of consideration for others – to describe the more lawless aspects of this industry. And yet, when it came to meting out justice in a case where precisely such 'cowboy' antics cost the life of a human being… the same magistrate opted for a sen- tence that would be considered lenient, even when ap- plied to such minor offences as vandalism or juvenile delinquency. Clearly, something is wrong with this judgment. How can the magistrate, on one hand, correctly note that 'people are living in anxiety and fear, every time they see a crane [..] in their street'… and yet, on the other, fail to take those people into consideration, when handing down a sentence that will only encourage more 'cow- boy-like' behaviour in future? It is primarily for this reason – and not, as suggested elsewhere, out of a desire for 'vendetta' – that so many people were irked, angered or disappointed by the ver- dict. Once again, a court ruling has sent out the wrong message to bullish contractors and developers: whose actions, in this case, have resulted in involuntary man- slaughter of people going about their daily lives. Their outrage is entirely justifiable, too. For without proper punitive measures for those whose cavalier ac- tions cause death and destruction, there can be no real justice for all Maltese people who – not unreasonably - live in fear of becoming the next victim of a construc- tion site incident. And in fact, the responsibility of the Court was pre- cisely towards Maltese and Gozitan citizens who ex- pected justice from this case; and not – as the same magistrate suggested – some wan attempt of 'bringing Miriam Pace back [from the dead]'. Nor is it particularly relevant, that the Pace family themselves approve the sentence. The Pace family had in fact already reached an out-of-court settlement on civil proceedings. But as the expression itself denotes: it was an 'out-of-court' agreement… i.e., over and above the remit of judicial proceedings. As such, this settlement should have had no bearing whatsoever on either the verdict, or – even less – the sentence. Nor, for that matter, should the fact that the Pace family publicly stated that it was 'not out for any- one's pound of flesh'. Irrespective of the Pace family's position in the matter – which should, naturally, be respected; and to which they are fully entitled - a criminal case's sentence should never be determined by the victim's relatives. Moreover, for many citizens, Miriam Pace was also the victim of deregulation of the construction industry: an issue that compromises their own safety, and their own state of mind. As such, their desire was not for "vendetta", either: on- ly for justice. In this case, however, justice was certainly not done: neither with Miriam Pace, nor with society as a whole. Once again, Malta's cowboy contractors have been given a get-out-of-jail-free card. And there is nothing 'just', or 'fair', about that. 4 July 2011 Maltese doctors wary of making organ donation mandatory FIVE doctors who work closely with both or- gan donors as well as potential recipients are wary of changing Malta's voluntary organ do- nation system, fearing negative reactions from relatives of the deceased. This emerges from a study published in the Malta Medical Journal by psychologist Mary Anne Lauri and Prof. Joseph Zarb Adami on doc- tors' attitudes towards organ donation. At present organs can only be retrieved from a dead body only if permission from the family of the deceased is given. Even the presence of a donor card signed by the deceased does not give doctors an automatic right to remove organs from the body. But countries like Spain, Italy and Belgium have introduced an "opt-out" system through which the only way to prevent the donation of organs is through a declaration made by the deceased when alive, stating his or her wish not to donate organs. The law in these countries requires doctors to take organs from the dead body if they can be used for transplantation purposes even if they do not have the permission of the family. Spain, which has a mandatory organ donation system, also has the highest rate of donated or- gans in Europe, followed by Belgium and France who have similar legislation. But despite the clear advantages of this system in increasing the supply of organs, the five Mal- tese doctors cited in the study are wary of the implications of introducing a similar system in Malta. Although they favour an opt-out policy, they feel it could create problems and that it should be postponed to a later date when people are in a better position to understand such a system. Doctors interviewed in the study explained the difficult context in which family members are asked to donate organs. When brain death is confirmed, the family of the person is approached and told their family member is dead. Some fam- ilies do not understand the notion of brain death and that a family member, who is apparently still alive and with his or her heart beating, is in fact dead. ... Quote of the Week "When asked what sentence should be handed to the accused, the family never suggested imprisonment for the architects." Lawyer David Bonello, who with Dr Joe Giglio, represented the family of Miriam Pace as the Court heard the case against two architects accused of causing her death MaltaToday 10 years ago