Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1519042
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 APRIL 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report More awareness and planning needed THIS country cannot keep ignoring the fact that it has a growing Muslim community within it that has its own religious festivities that have to be cele- brated. I say this because it is pretty obvi- ous that the traffic jams created last week when Paola Hill was obstructed by the many Muslim believers who descended on the mosque to celebrate Eid al-Ftir were not anticipated be- forehand. Apart from the village feasts and other Christian celebrations that cre- ate road closures every now and then, this country must also add celebra- tions like those of Eid to its annual festivities. This will help the authorities plan ahead to cater for these events so that traffic mitigation measures can be put in place. The Muslim community has every right to celebrate Eid but better co- ordination with the civil authorities would ensure the least possible dis- ruption. I was caught up in the traffic back- log in Paola not knowing why the back roads were all clogged up. Raising awareness on such events that do not naturally figure in the heads of most people, and putting out information to ensure people avoid certain roads as much as pos- sible would be more desirable than a 45-minute wait cursing every saint and the minister for transport. T. Muscat Fgura Leave my letterbox alone WE are two months away from the Euro- pean Parliament and local council elec- tions and my letterbox has already started filling up with useless propaganda materi- al from candidates who intend to contest. With all this emphasis on the environ- ment, sustainability and green policies, is it still possible that candidates do not realise the waste of money, resources and environmental harm they are causing by flooding our letterboxes with unsolicited mailshots, leaflets and business cards. I just wonder who bothers to look at these leaflets. Mine simply end up in the grey recyclables bag for pick up every Thurs- day by the waste collector. David Mallia Mellieħa They deserve our gratitude THE news today, as always, is too depress- ing and negative to follow. If it's not a war here, it is a school massacre there; if it's not a natural disaster here, it is a horrific accident somewhere else. Please allow me the space to thank all those people, whoever they may be, who work in silence to help make the lives of those who are marginalised, poor and lonely, a bit better. There are many who selflessly carry out charity work with their neighbours, friends, family and sometimes complete strangers. These people bring a ray of hope in the lives of those who cannot see light in their lives. These people provide welcome relief in a world of doom and gloom. They deserve all our gratitude. M. Agius St Paul's Bay A judge should evaluate all the evidence produced in the acts of the case. This was held by the Court of Appeal on 9 April 2024 in Anthony Muscat et vs the Prime Minister and the Commander of the Armed Forces of Malta. The Court was presided by the Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and judges Rob- ert Mangion and Grazio Mercieca. 19 Armed Forces personnel had filed court action after they were not given a promotion and argued that this was administrative abuse. They further ar- gued that the persons who were given a promotion were either equally senior or less senior or else less qualified. 18 of the 19 soldiers withdrew the action in order for them to be considered for a backdated promotion. Carmel Par- nis was the only soldier who wanted to proceed with this case. On 21 March 2019, the First Hall of the Civil Court turned down Parnis's claims. The Court in its judgment held that Parnis joined the Armed Forces of Malta in 1985. Colonel Cauchi Inglott told him that as long as he would be head of the Maritime Squadron, he would not give Parnis a promotion. In fact, in 2006, he was not promoted to Warrant Officer, but in 2007 he was promoted to War- rant Officer 1. Article 37 of the Ap- pointments and Conditions of Service of the Armed Forces Regulation state that the promotions should be given after recommendation based on effi- ciency, seniority and qualifications. These are collective elements which determine whether a person should be promoted. Those with the highest points, should be given a promotion. In this case Colonel Mark Mallia tes- tified by means of an affidavit and told the court that he had filled in the AFM Promotion Assessment Report for Par- nis. Part of the assessment is subjective and given by the commanding officer. It is based on the capability of the sol- dier and his attitude. There are also ob- jective criteria, which include courses taken, and whether the person is phys- ically fit and whether he has shooting skills. The First Court argued that Par- nis did not prove that the persons who were promoted did not merit the pro- motion. The First Court quoted from Maurice Cristina vs Central Bank of Malta of 5 July 2005, which held that the Plaintiff must show that he deserves a promo- tion and not that there is no reason for him not to be given a promotion. In Francis Borg Falzon vs Command- er AFM, decided on 7 July 2004, the court held that if a member of the AFM is not given a promotion, it does not automatically mean that this is a case of injustice. Seniority is important if there are other candidates who have different attributes. In this case, the First Hall reading through the Promotion Assessment Report held that Lieutenant Cauchi In- glott did not abuse his discretion and took into consideration all the factors. The First Court turned down Parnis's request. Parnis appealed the judgment and the first grounds of appeal dealt with the merits of the case. Parnis argued that he was given other promotions, howev- er, the Court of Appeal held that being given a promotion does not mean he was entitled to other promotions. Nei- ther does it follow that he should have been given a promotion when Colonel Cauchi Inglott was in charge. The First Court did take into consideration what was said by Colonel Cauchi Inglott. The Court decided that Colonel Cauchi Inglott did not abuse his discretion. As to Colonel Mark Mallia, Parnis argued that he never served under him and therefore, the First Court should not have rested on Mallia's affidavit. Mallia had explained the process of promotions within the AFM and there- fore, Parnis did not need to work un- der Colonel Mallia for him to be able to testify. The Court held that it is for the judge to evaluate the evidence brought in the case. If the Plaintiff attacks the value of the evidence produced, then he must show that the evidence is inadequate. The Plaintiff should not pick and choose evidence to show that the com- plexity of the evidence is sufficient. The Court of Appeal held that the First Court did not ignore the relevant evi- dence or else took particular attention to irrelevant evidence. The court acts do not include the reports of those candidates who were given a promotion. The Court then moved to turn down the appeal and confirm the judgment. It is the judge who should evaluate the evidence produced LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates