Chamber suspends architects over Miriam Pace building collapse

Updated 3.30pm

The Chamber of Architects has suspended the professional warrants of the two architects involved in the death of Miriam Pace in a building collapse.

Architect Roderick Camilleri, who was in charge of the construction site next to the building that collapsed, has been suspended for two years and four months.

The council, which is elected by the chamber, found that Camilleri did not uphold the standards of the profession when he drew up “amateurish and hastily drawn-up” risk assessments and mitigation measures.

Architect Anthony Mangion, who was the site technical officer for the site, has been handed a 14-month suspension. He was found to have “failed to fulfil his primary duty” as an STO.

The council, which came to the decision this week, five years after Pace’s death, considered that both architects had a prior clean professional record when coming to the decision.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi, who represents both Camilleri and Mangion, said on Friday that both his clients will be appealing the council's decision in court.

"Until that appeal is decided, Camilleri and Mangion will have their warrants intact," he said. 

The 54-year-old mother of two was in her home when the house was reduced to a pile of rubble at 2.15pm on March 2 2020 as it collapsed into a next-door site under excavation.

Pace, 54, was in her home when the house was reduced to a pile of rubble as it collapsed into a next-door site under excavation.

The two architects have already faced criminal proceedings and were found guilty of involuntary damage to third-party property. They were spared jail in view of their clean criminal record but were fined and ordered to perform community service. 

The chamber did not begin its proceedings until the criminal court concluded its work and an appeal was decided upon. The chamber then requested a copy of the magisterial inquiry which was granted in September 2022.  

Camilleri drew up 'amateurish' risk assesment

The chamber deliberated whether Camilleri was in breach of the following provisions of the Periti Act:

• Dishonesty, misconduct, or gross negligence in the exercise of his profession;
• Conduct discreditable to the profession;
• Failure to comply with regulations with respect to professional standards or practices.

In their deliberations, the chamber found that Camilleri had failed to fulfil his “obligation [of periti] to ensure that any agreement on fees is made in writing, and that services covered by such a fee are clearly outlined”.

Instead, the chamber found that Camilleri entered a 10 per cent shareholder agreement with the developer responsible for the site.

Therefore, the architect was found in breach of the Second Provision of the Code of Professional Conduct that says:

“[A] member is remunerated solely by his professional fees payable by his clients and/or by his salary payable by his employer. He is debarred from any other source of remuneration in connection with the works and duties.”

The council said he was guilty because he failed to separate his professional engagement from the company shareholding agreement.

However, the council said Camilleri’s bartering agreement, in which he took a share of the development instead of fees, did not constitute a conflict of interest.

The council also found that Camilleri failed to comply with the standards of the profession because he had presented a “deficient demolition method statement” and a “deficient excavation method statement”.

“The risk assessments and mitigation measures were amateurish and hastily drawn up. This nonchalant attitude to risk inevitably permeates to all participants in the construction project.”

The council added that there is no evidence to link the faulty method statement to the building collapse, and consequent death of Miriam Pace.

They did not, however, find him in breach of gross negligence, even though Camilleri “had appointed a non-qualified person to inspect the neighbouring properties and draw up the required documentation”.

The council did not find him guilty of “blackmailing or strong-arming neighbours into accepting” excavation so close to the adjacent wall.

'Mangion had little to no communication with the contractor'

The council found that architect Anthony Mangion, who was the site technical officer for the site, “was failing to fulfil his primary duty of enforcing the method statement”.

“The role of STO is to actively direct the works to ensure compliance with the method statement. Such an active role necessitates a more physical and logistical presence on site," the council report said.

It said that Mangion "adopted a very passive stance when occupying the position of STO" and "believed that his role was to take note of observations he casually makes on site while carrying out random site visits".

The council said this was not what the legislator intended for the role of STO.

During the proceedings, Mangion testified under oath for the first time, having previously exercised his right to silence in criminal proceedings.

Mangion’s testimony revealed that he was not an “integrated member of the project team, and had little to no communication with the contractor given that he would inspect the property at random, without any coordination with the contractor”.

“Indeed, there were times when the Respondent found the site shut without him knowing of this beforehand.”

The council also found that Mangion was appointed only to satisfy administrative requirements.

“It was apparent that he was appointed solely to satisfy a bureaucratic requirement, rather than because his services were truly needed on site.”

However, the council did not conclude that Mangion was to blame for this and found him not guilty of “failure to be present on site when decisions were being taken” as they laid the blame on the developer and the architect in charge for this.

“The Council noted that the key members of the project team, namely the developer, perit-in-charge, were not keeping the Respondent abreast of the project.”

They also found Mangion not guilty of failure to participate in the drafting of the method statement because the method statement had been drafted and works on site had commenced before his professional engagement.