Architects in Miriam Pace case challenge constitutional validity of KTP inquiry

A court has been asked to determine whether proceedings before the Chamber of Architects' council should be treated as determining a criminal charge or civil rights and obligations, under the right to a fair trial protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The issue arose during an appeal filed by architects Roderick Camilleri and Anthony Mangion, who were found guilty in connection with the death of Miriam Pace, whose Ħamrun home in Triq Joseph Abela Scolaro collapsed following adjacent construction works on March 2, 2020.

The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, to assess the validity of certain procedures adopted by the Kamra tal-Periti’s (KTP) Council, which investigated and sanctioned the architects.

Camilleri had also been convicted of making false declarations to public authorities and was sentenced to 480 hours of community service and a €10,000 fine. Mangion was found guilty of being absent from the construction site and was sentenced to 400 hours of community service and an €8,000 fine.

Both architects later had the fines replaced with suspended prison terms on appeal: Camilleri received two years suspended for two, and Mangion got 15 months suspended for two years. The community service hours remained unchanged.

In April, the KTP Council published its findings on their professional conduct, suspending Camilleri’s warrant for 28 months and Mangion’s for 14 months, citing breaches of professional standards and failure to uphold proper practices.

Both men appealed the KTP Council’s decision, raising several constitutional concerns, chief among them an alleged breach of their right to a fair trial. This led to a request for a constitutional reference before their appeal on the sanctions could proceed.

The architects initially claimed double jeopardy, arguing that since the criminal court had already considered whether their warrants should be suspended, the KTP Council could not re-try the matter. However, they later withdrew this argument during proceedings held on May 22.

Their main grievance now concerns the impartiality of the KTP Council. They argued that the same body which initiated the investigation, then went on to draw up charges and finally issued its own judgement, thereby breaching the fundamental legal principle nemo iudex in causa sua — no one should be judge in their own cause.

They further argued that the subsidiary legislation allowing the council to investigate, prosecute, and punish members violates the requirement for an impartial tribunal, as outlined in both the Constitution and European human rights law.

The appellants argued that a person facing criminal charges has a right to a fair trial before an impartial court, and that extends to civil courts and judicial authorities established by law when determining civil rights and obligations. 

They insisted the Council lacked impartiality because it acted as investigator, prosecutor, and judge, and that this structure failed to safeguard their right to a fair trial.

They also argued the proceedings had a criminal character, and thus should have respected their presumption of innocence. They questioned a regulation stating that the committee “shall not decide against an architect... unless they are given full opportunity to exculpate themselves,” arguing this may not be compatible with that presumption.

The Court of Appeal referred three questions to the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. It asked whether the regulations found in the relevant legislation empowering the council to initiate an inquiry against the architects and suspending their warrants breached the principle of impartiality, whether their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was breached through the regulation that gave them right to exculpate themselves from the findings prior to a decision and thirdly, if the court determines that their fundamental rights had been breached, was the breach serious enough to annull the decision taken in April 2025 when their warrants was suspended.

The appeal was put off until a final decision is delivered by a court that has constitutional jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti presided along judges Christian Falzon Scerri and Josette Demicoli.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi assisted Camilleri and Mangion.

Lawyer Joseph Mizzi assisted the KTP.