Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1538131
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 AUGUST 2025 LAW WHEN a person's actions do not amount to criminal negligence under Articles 226 or 328 of the Criminal Code, or the charges are not proved be- yond reasonable doubt, the accused will be acquitted. This was reiterated in the case the Po- lice vs Carmel Seisun, decided on 22 Ju- ly 2025 by Magistrate Elaine Rizzo. On 29 November 2016, an explosion occurred at the LPG (liquefied petrole- um gas) system in the Public Abattoir in Marsa, causing serious injuries to two EasyGas workers, Donis Bildris and Anthony Grima. EasyGas Ltd was subcontracted to carry out maintenance on the LPG sys- tem located inside the abattoir. The gas installation was designed to power ma- chinery and was extremely flammable and hazardous. A gas leak occurred inside the en- closed section of the installation. Gas began to accumulate inside the cham- ber due to valve malfunction, faulty maintenance, or possible failure to de- tect leaks in time. Both Anthony Grima and Donis Bildiris were present inside the fenced gas chamber, reportedly doing main- tenance work. Carmel Seisun was also present on site. The explosion occurred at 12:15pm. Carmel Seisun was charged with three counts of criminal negligence under the Criminal Code. The first being invol- untary grievous bodily harm to Donis Dobrinis Bidiris, through negligence or lack of professional skill, involuntary bodily harm of a lesser nature to Antho- ny Grima and damage to government property as a result of negligence in his professional duties. Medical experts submitted certificates and affidavits about the nature, severity, and long-term prognosis of the injuries sustained by the victims. It was con- firmed that Donis Bildiris suffered the most severe injuries, with second- and third-degree burns. Medical reports estimated burns over 45% of the total body surface area, including deep tis- sue damage and the need for ICU treat- ment. Anthony Grima sustained less se- vere burns, medically classified as par- tial-thickness/superficial burns. CCTV footage was also used as evi- dence from the Public Abattoir's securi- ty system. Multiple employees, includ- ing Bildiris and Grima, were seen inside or around the fenced LPG chamber, which was a restricted area. The footage also showed warning signs, which stated "no Smoking" in multiple languages. Despite this, the footage showed Anthony Grima hold- ing a cigarette and Donis Bildris was also seen smoking more than once, in- cluding just minutes before the explo- sion. Bildiris was seen removing a cigarette from his mouth shortly before the ex- plosion. Carmel Seisun was in the area, but the footage did not conclusively show him smoking. The court relied heavily on scientific evidence collected by the Police Fo- rensic Lab. A cigarette butt found near the ignition point was retrieved and DNA-tested. The analysis confirmed the cigarette belonged to Donis Bildiris. Investigators traced the gas leak to a solenoid valve, which malfunctioned. Experts determined that the LPG leak created a gas cloud within the chamber, which could ignite with minimal flame. It was not possible to determine if the valve was faulty due to negligence or mechanical failure. Multiple experts were appointed to evaluate the LPG system's functional- ity, maintenance records and proce- dures, whether industry standards were met and how the ignition and explosion occurred. Daniel Vella accessed CCTV and LPG system blueprints and determined that gas had accumulated over time, likely ignited by a cigarette or open flame. Ryan Fava stated that access to the main gate of the LPG installation should have been restricted. Stephen Farrugia Sacco verified mis- matches between safety instructions and actual behaviour. Lastly, Christian Camilleri, a mechan- ical engineer confirmed malfunctioning machinery and said the EasyGas team may have lacked proper training on how to handle the evaporator system. Donis Bildiris, who was the victim, testified that he saw Carmel Seisun smoking inside the chamber before the explosion. He also went on to state that Seisun was handling tasks unsuper- vised, despite being a helper. Anthony Grima testified and denied lighting a cigarette near the gas. He al- so testified that Bildiris was in charge, shifting the blame onto him. Menawhile, the accused, Carmel Seis- un, testified and strongly denied smok- ing or even carrying cigarettes. He claimed he was only a helper assisting with tools and basic supervision. Dur- ing his testimony he blamed a lack of proper training and supervision from his manager. The judgment distinguishes between intentional wrongdoing and culpable negligence. For someone to be found guilty of a crime based on negligence, their conduct must fall short of what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances. There must also be a causal link between the person's negli- gent act or omission and the harm that occurred. The judgment quoted leading case law such as Police vs Perit Louis Portelli which determined that "negligence, im- prudence or lack of skill must be deter- mined in light of the actions expected from a reasonable, intelligent person in the same circumstances." The court also made reference to Police vs Arthur Castillo, which reaf- firmed that to find someone guilty, the prosecution must prove a negligent act or omission, that was linked casually to the resulting harm or danger. The law demands proof beyond rea- sonable doubt that the accused acted negligently and that such negligence was the direct cause of the explosion and injuries. Magistrate Elaine Rizzo walked through the following chain of reason- ing before reaching a verdict. The mag- istrate reasoned that being present does not automatically mean that Seisun is guilty. The magistrate also reasoned that the DNA evidence did not implicate Seis- un. Although a cigarette butt was found near the ignition site, DNA analysis confirmed that it belonged to Donis Bildiris, not Seisun. The court consid- ered this a critical piece of exculpatory evidence showing that the flame that likely caused the explosion was not Sei- sun's. The magistrate also stated that CCTV footage confirmed that both Grima and Bildiris were smoking near the LPG sys- tem, despite visible 'No Smoking' signs. Additionally, Seisun was never cap- tured lighting or smoking any cigarette or pipe on video. Through testimonies it was also confirmed that Seisun was a helper, not a technician or supervi- sor. He did not operate valves or per- form gas-related checks. His role was peripheral, and not one that involved decision-making or control over the gas system. Furthermore, Donis Bildiris, was ac- tually Seisun's supervisor. The court remarked that a person cannot reason- ably be held accountable for failing to supervise a situation where others with higher authority were present and over- seeing the work. The magistrate also highlighted the fact that although technical and engi- neering experts agreed the explosion was due to gas build-up igniting via a flame, no expert definitively attributed the gas leak or the ignition to an act or omission by Seisun. The court therefore acquitted Car- mel Seisun on all three charges, citing that reasonable doubt remained about his role; his actions did not amount to criminal negligence and he could not be held liable for the explosion or the inju- ries caused. MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Court makes a distinction between wrongdoing and negligence