Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1525500
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 AUGUST 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Poor football performances in Europe THE hopes that were kindled over the past few years when Maltese football clubs performed well in European competitions by qualifying to subsequent rounds were dashed this year. Apart from the fact that no Maltese football club got anywhere close to the first group stages of the UEFA compe- titions, we witnessed Hamrun Spartans being eliminated from the Champions League preliminary round by a team from Gibraltar and Sliema Wanderers conced- ing seven goals in their away match. Hamrun, Sliema and Floriana were all eliminated in the second qualifying round of the UEFA Conference League, while Marsaxlokk failed to get past the first qualifying round. It is a shame that Mal- tese football clubs cannot seem to register significant progress that is lasting. I keep asking myself how teams from smaller countries – Gibraltar is only just larger than Birkirkara in population terms – seem to have improved their performances, while Maltese clubs keep faltering despite the long-standing foot- ball tradition. The luck of draw can only explain the lack of progress to a certain extent. When Maltese teams appear to be struggling, as they did this year, against opponents from San Marino and Gi- braltar, the issue appears to be more deep-seated. Unfortunately, club football often lacks professionalism, which in turn impacts the quality of the domestic game. But alas, we live on for another season and hope for better next year. T. Micallef Attard Mellieha swimming zone SWIMMER zones around Malta and Gozo are welcome to protect bathers from the risks posed by boats but in some instances, I believe the zones should be expanded further out to sea. One such example is Mellieħa Bay where the buoys marking the swimming zone are too close to shore. It is ridiculous that up to the edge of the swimming zone the water level remains so low that you can almost stand. This may be the result of beach erosion, which has dragged sand further out to sea but it just feels like the bay is a chicken coop trying to host the hundreds if not thousands of bathers. The mere fact that scores of motorboats are moored just outside the swimmer zone just makes the sea feel more claus- trophobic. The buoy markers identifying the swim- mer zone should be shifted further out into the bay thus ensuring that there is more distance between the moored boats and swimmers. After all, it makes no difference to those enjoying the sea from their boat, whether they are anchored another 100m out at sea. The difference, though, will be felt by bathers on the beach. F. Muscat Mellieħa WHEN the prosecution accuses a per- son of falsification, it must bring suffi- cient evidence that will show a falsifica- tion has taken place. This was held in a judgment delivered by the Court of Criminal Ap`peal in the Police vs Ron- ald Muscat. The Court was presided over by Judge Natasha Galea Sciberras on 7 August 2024. Ronald Muscat was charged with fraud, falsification and making use of false documents. The Magistrates' Court did not find Muscat guilty of the charges. The Attorney General presented an appeal and asked the Court of Criminal Appeal to revoke that part of the judg- ment where the accused was charged with falsification and the use of a false document and give him an appropriate punishment. The case started in October 2013, when the owner of a penthouse in St Paul's Bay who was renting to Muscat, reported that the latter had falsified his signature on a document that allowed Melita plc to provide a service. Muscat was charged in 2015. The Attorney General (AG) argued that Muscat had offered to pay the pending bills with Melita plc and it was Muscat who signed the application to receive the service. Muscat could not say whether he or the Melita official had signed on behalf of the owner. It was proved that the signature was false. The AG quoted from a previous judg- ment, The Maltese Republic vs Ema- nuel Zammit, decided on 21 April 2005, which held that the appellate court does not disturb the first court's analysis of the evidence and respects the Court's discretion, as long as this is reasonable. However, if the first court could not reasonably arrive to a conclusion it did arrive to, then the appellate court would be correct to challenge that discretion. The Court of Criminal Appeal did look at the evidence the first court had in hand. The accused lived in the pent- house for eight years. Melita plc did offer an internet service together with telephone and mobile. There were two accounts. In his statement to the police, Muscat explained that he had a contract for one year. It was cancelled after two years because it was not paid on time. The owner of the property did not apply for the services and from a comparison of signatures, it resulted that it was not his. The statement Muscat gave the police said that he had applied in the own- er's name and was not sure whether he had signed instead of the owner. Mus- cat said that he had entered Valletta and was approached by a woman who informed him that Melita had a spe- cial offer and he gave his address. Two days later the equipment was installed. He was asked to fill in a document. He agreed that there was a pending bill of over €400. He wanted to pay by instal- ments because he had lost his job. He had no intention of signing on behalf of a third party and in fact he does not know whether he signed or someone else did. Under cross examination, the owner could not say whether Muscat lived on his own or with another person. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the Melita plc documents that Muscat signed were not presented. There is a doubt whether they actually exist. The prosecution presented one document with the owner's false sig- nature and other documents with his signature. As such the court could not say without reasonable doubt that Mus- cat had signed the documents. The ev- idence does not show that the accused falsified any signature. The prosecution did not ask for a hand-writing expert to state whether the false signature is the accused's. The Court of Criminal Appeal, then moved to reject the AG's appeal. Prosecution must prove falsification in falsification case LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates