Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1517916
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 24 MARCH 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Solidarity with MCAST lecturer I write in solidarity with the lecturer at MCAST who was assaulted by a stu- dent. Unfortunately, it has become the norm for students to defy their teach- ers and show lack of respect towards them. It is indeed a societal malaise, where authority is frowned upon. We have become a society that emphasises rights without equally referring to re- sponsibilities and respect. This is increasingly evident at school level, where students show no respect towards their teachers and to make matters worse are excused by their parents. I hope that MCAST manage- ment takes appropriate action against the student and sends a strong message that such behaviour will not be toler- ated. Jason Vella Mellieħa Reduce tax on work Rishi Sunak's government in the UK has just cut the rate of national insurance in a bid to leave more money in the pockets of Britons. The Maltese government should consider a similar move by cutting NI from 10% as it stands today to 7% thus giving all workers in Malta a significant tax cut. NI is a direct tax on work that is paid by employees and employers. By cutting NI, employers will also save on labour costs, giving them a breather. A similar rate cut should also apply to self-employed individuals. The Labour government prides itself in not having increased taxes over the past decade, a commendable feat. But I believe the time has come to reduce tax on work thus leaving more money in people's pockets, especially in light of recent statistics compiled by KP- MG that show how wage increases in Malta were eaten away by inflation. M. Muscat St Julian's THE Court will decide on all claims and pleas the parties of a case have raised. This was held in an action in- stituted by Lovin Malta Limited and Christian Peregrin vs the State Ad- vocate. One Productions Limited, the Labour Part y-owned media compa- ny, and Media.Link Communications Company Limited, the Nationalist Part y-owned media firm, intervened in this case. The partial judgment was delivered on 18 March 2024 by Mr Jus- tice Ian Spiteri Bailey. The partial judgment followed an application filed by One Productions wherein it asked the court to declare the action in itself will violate their fundamental human rights as protect- ed in the Constitution and in the Euro- pean Convention. Therefore, it asked for a remedy at law. One Productions are claiming that the merits of the case deal with wheth- er Article 13(1) of the Broadcasting Act is in violation of Article 119 of the Constitution. One Productions further explained that it is licensed to operate a television and radio station and the Labour Par- ty is the major shareholder. The scope of this is to have a voice on the broad- casting media. It further explained that it broadcasts an array of different programmes, including the news and current affair programmes and tries to give an objective view of the facts and voices, as well as the view of the Labour Party. It complained that historically, the Labour Party was always disadvan- taged and discriminated against by the independent media and the only means for the Labour Party to assure itself the possibility to drive its message home, is to have its own media. The case at hand will affect the existence of its sta- tions and the freedom of expression as protected by the Constitution and the European Convention, the company argued. One Productions felt that Lovin Mal- ta's application was discriminatory against it. The law was penned when broadcasting was controlled and re- stricted. Today, technology has developed in such a way that it allows anyone to voice its political messages. Lovin Mal- ta, in fact, broadcasts the news and political messages without any restric- tions, One Productions argued, adding the application is aimed at stopping it from broadcasting its political beliefs. This would be a breach of its funda- mental human rights, the party media company stated. One Productions challenged the fact that the case is being heard by the First Hall of the Civil Court, since an appli- cation to refer the issue of the consti- tutional validity is already before the First Hall of the Civil Court. Lovin Malta disagreed with One Pro- ductions, in that it was not seeking to stop One Productions from broadcast- ing but was challenging the validity of the proviso of Article 13 of the Broad- casting Act, as in violation of Article 119 of the Constitution. One Productions is advancing a con- stitutional action in the action popola- ris. Lovin Malta argued that the action cannot dilute One Production's rights, because it was protected by Article 116 of the Constitution, which allows any- one to attack any piece of legislation. One Productions is arguing that Lovin Malta's action is in itself a breach of its fundamental human rights. Lovin Mal- ta argued that One Productions can produce evidence that will back their legal position. The State Advocate argued that it understood the position taken by One Productions, as an owner of a broad- casting station. It was further argued that the Court is bound to take cogni- zance of all pleas raised by the Defend- ant and of those parties which inter- vened in the case. As such the Court cannot ignore One Production's con- stitutional complaint and must decide this. The Court referred to what One Pro- ductions is requesting: According to One Productions Article 46 of the Con- stitution allows any party to an action which is not a Constitutional Court of the First Hall of the Civil Court to refer a constitutional issue to another court. If the issue raised is not frivolous and vexatious, then the Court must deliver a judgment on that constitutional issue raised. The other parties to this action are against the procedure One Produc- tions adopted, since it cannot be done. Article 46(3) of the Constitution reads: "(3) If in any proceedings in any court other than the Civil Court, First Hall, or the Constitutional Court any question arises as to the contravention of any of the provisions of the said arti- cles 33 to 45 (inclusive), that court shall refer the question to the Civil Court, First Hall, unless in its opinion the rais- ing of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious; and that court shall give its decision on any question referred to it under this sub-article and, subject to the provisions of sub-article (4) of this article, the court in which the question arose shall dispose of the question in accordance with that decision." The Court held that the article clearly indicates that the procedure suggested may be used only if the action is not before the Constitutional Court and the First Hall of the Civil Courts. This is not the case in this case. As such One Production's application cannot be entertained. Furthermore, it is not permitted for a party which intervened in a constitutional case to file a consti- tutional complaint in the action which is examining a constitutional issue. Regulation 2 of the Court Practice and Procedure and Good Order Rules: "2. Proceedings before the Civil Court, First Hall, under article 46(1) of the Constitution of Malta and under article 4(1) of the European Convention Act and proceedings before the Constitu- tional Court in cases referred to in ar- ticle 95(2) of the Constitution of Malta shall be instituted by application." But this refers to application which institutes the action. The Court referred to Article 218 of the Code of Organisation and Civ- il Procedure stipulates that the Court must decide on all claim and pleas. This was sustained in Angelo Spiteri vs Police Commissioner, decided by the Constitutional Court on 16 April 1999. The Court then moved to reject One Production's application but assured One Productions that it will deal with the issues raised in its final judgment. The Court must decide on all pleas raised LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates