An appeals court on Friday confirmed suspended prison sentences for two construction company directors over the death of a French teenager crushed by the collapse of a poorly built brick wall. 

James Mifsud and Gordon Farrugia, directors of Buz-Dov Developments Ltd, were each handed a two-year jail term suspended for four years in 2019 over the involuntary homicide of 19-year old Quentin Michel on August 1, 2011.

The youth was pretending to scale a poolside wall, taking “funny photos” with a group of friends whilst staying at a Swieqi holiday home, when the structure gave way, toppling onto the victim, who ended up unconscious under the debris.

The victim Quentin Michel

Criminal action was taken against the couple who had rented out their property to the youths and also against the contractors who had undertaken construction works at the premises.

The owners were cleared of involuntary homicide, but criminal responsibility was pinned upon the contractors who subsequently filed an appeal.

In its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, concluded that there “was no shadow of doubt” that the wall had collapsed because it had not been built according to proper building skills.

Although the wall had given way when the victim leaned upon it, that was not the sole, immediate cause for the fatal incident, said the court, observing that the “tall and thin” youth had not put his full weight upon the wall while posing for a photo with one foot resting on the ground.

'no shadow of doubt that the wall had collapsed because it had not been built according to proper building skills'

Within moments of the first photo, the wall had collapsed, even before the victim’s friend had managed to take a second snapshot.

That friend later testified how he had viewed the whole tragic episode through his camera.

The appellants raised the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the victim, but the court observed that the wall had given way under minimal pressure because it had not been constructed properly, according to building regulations and skills.

Otherwise it would not have collapsed, irrespective of the victim’s action which “did not exonerate the appellants from responsibility for the construction which had been done in a negligent and amateurish manner.”

Moreover, the wall had not featured in the compliance certificate issued in respect of the construction project undertaken at the property, nor in any subsequent application for minor amendments to the permit.

The brick structure, requested by the owners to mask the rock face behind it, had not been mentioned to the architects involved in the project, who had thus not certified the works, noted the court.

But the contractors could not shrug off criminal responsibility since they had permitted construction of the wall without taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the masons carried out the works skilfully, in line with regulations.

They could not even pinpoint the mason who had actually built the structure, the court observed, declaring that it found no reason “to depart from the meticulous exercise” conducted by the first court in reaching its conclusions.

As for the appellants’ argument that the punishment meted out was too harsh, Judge Grima said that the sentence was mild.

Probation officers appointed to report to the court about the appellants, had described the directors as “exemplary citizens” who now carried out their work in line with their art or profession.

However, the victim’s parents were still facing the traumatic loss of a 19-year old son in such a tragic and unfortunate incident, and that too needed to be taken into consideration when meting out punishment in such manner as to redress victims of crime, the court said, thus rejecting the appeal.

Lawyer Michael Zammit Maempel assisted the victim’s family.