Letters to the editor – March 11, 2026

High-end tourism

Malcolm Broughton of Lancashire, UK, writes:

As a regular visitor to Malta since 1981, I fell I could venture several observations and suggestions on the topic of ‘high-end tourism’.

I was staying in the Buġibba/Qawra area only last week, as I have done for 45 years, a popular tourist destination, but beset with the habitual problems. I refer, of course, to broken pavements, litter everywhere and vacant plots used as dumping grounds. The aptly named Tourist Street is a prime example of the problems.

Broken pavements and litter are commonplace in Buġibba. Photo: Shutterstock.com

During my five-day stay, I did not see a street cleaner, either physical or mechanical. The St Paul’s Bay council needs to get a grip on these problems.

I would suggest that the Minister for Tourism Ian Borg takes a stroll around the area, and he would then realise just what is needed to attract ‘high-end tourists’, or like myself, regular visitors to the island.

Unfit to stand trial

Mark Said of Msida writes:

I refer to the criminal court case in which the presiding judge recommended the minister for justice examine whether amendments to the law are necessary to address situations where a person is considered mentally sound at the time the crime is committed but later no longer remains mentally fit to undergo court proceedings.

With all due respect to the presiding judge, it is my personal professional opinion that no such amendments are necessary insofar as Article 620(1) of the Criminal Code clearly contemplates situations where due “... to any point of fact, by reason of which, if true, the person accused would not, at the time or at any future time, be called upon to plead to the indictment, or be put on trial, or made to undergo punishment…”.

Article 623(1) then, specifically directs that “Where, upon the allegation referred to in sub-article (1) of Article 620, the accused is found to be insane, the court shall order the accused to be kept in custody in Mount Carmel Hospital there to remain in custody and detained according to the provisions of the Mental Health Act, or any other provision of law or enactment applicable to the case, and those provisions shall apply to the accused accordingly.”

Of course, anyone begging to differ from this interpretation is welcome to come forward with contrary, convincing arguments.