Miriam Pace architects' fundamental rights not breached by disciplinary action

A court has ruled that the architects found guilty in connection with the building collapse that killed Miriam Pace did face a breach of impartiality in disciplinary proceedings before the Kamra tal-Periti but the shortcomings in proceedings was not serious enough to annul the case because they still have full appeal rights.

The pronouncement was made by the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, following a constitutional reference made by the Court of Appeal which had referred four questions after claims of potential breaches of fundamental human rights were made.

The claims arose in 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.

Camilleri was found guilty of involuntary homicide and involuntary damage to third party property and was handed a two-year prison term suspended for four years on appeal. He was fined €10,000 and ordered to carry out 480 hours of community work.

Mangion was similarly found guilty and was handed a 15-month prison term suspended for two years, in addition to 400 hours of community work.

Their case was investigated by the KTP’s committee for any shortcomings under the Kamra’s Regulations and the Periti Act. Camilleri and Mangion were found guilty and had their warrant suspended by the chamber for 28 months and 14 months respectively.

The pair appealed the decision before the Court of Appeal and raised a number of issues relating to their fundamental rights.

The Court of Appeal referred the questions on the human rights issues 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 Council, which investigated and sanctioned the architects.

The First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction was asked to determine whether proceedings before the KTP’s 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.

It was also asked to determine whether the regulations 5 and 6 of the Chamber of Architects Regulations, Subsidiary Legislation 390.01, on the enquiries into the professional practices of architects and civil engineers and punishment, give rise to a breach of the principle of impartiality as safeguarded under the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights when the council acted as investigator, prosecutor and judge in the proceedings against the two architects.

The two other questions related to whether the proceedings breached the architects’ right to be presumed innocent until found guilty and in the eventuality that the court finds a breach of fundamental rights, is it serious enough to warrant the annulment of KTP’s council decision taken on April 4.

The First Hall of the Civil Court observed that the elements listed down in the case Müller-Hartburg vs Austria applied almost perfectly to the cases at hand. It held that the regulation in question is not aimed at the general public but at members of the profession, and while the same facts gave rise to criminal proceedings against Camilleri and Mangion, the committee launched and led disciplinary proceedings relating only to professional conduct.

The court said that the Periti Act and the subsidiary legislation are aimed at regulating the professional conduct and reputation of the profession.

It observed that in the worst case scenario, the architects could have at most lost their warrant, which is a “typical consequence” in disciplinary proceedings but it does not amount to the determination of a criminal charge.

The court then analysed whether the regulations breach the principle of impartiality, and held that the structural problem created by the regulations was “clear”.

“The committee investigates. The committee decides whether the architect has a case to answer, the committee bring evidence against the architect when it decides that there is a case against the architect. The committee presides over the proceedings when hearing a case against the architect, and the committee decides, after the architect is given the opportunity to exculpate themselves. The committee ultimately decides on the sanction to be imposed,” Mr Justice Henri Mizzi said, adding that the regulations have elements which are similar to the rules regulating the medical profession.

It quoted the decision handed down by Mr Justice Robert Mangion in Stephen Spiteri vs Medical Council et, “that this is a classical case of lack of objective structural impartiality.”

It also said that since the proceedings before the Chamber do not determine a criminal charge, then the principle of the presumption of innocence is not applicable in this case.

The First Hall of the Civil Court ruled that the disciplinary proceedings before KTP’s committee determine a civil right or obligation under the right to a fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution and provided for in the European Convention of Human Rights.

It held that the regulations on the investigation and punishment gave rise to a breach of the principle of impartiality as enshrined under the right to a fair trial due to KTP’s committee acting as investigator, prosecutor and judge in those same proceedings.

Notwithstanding these shortcomings in the proceedings before KTP’s committee, the court held they were not serious enough to warrant the annulment of the same proceedings since the architects had a right to a full appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Mr Justice Henri Mizzi presided over the First Hall of the Civil Court.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi assisted Camilleri and Mangion.

Lawyers Joseph Mizzi and Ylenia Busuttil assisted KTP.

Lawyers Maurizio Cordina and Anthony Borg represented the State Advocate.

KTP welcomes judgement

In a brief statement, KTP welcomed the judgements handed down on Friday morning, noting that it confirmed that the laws and regulations governing the Kamra tal-Periti’s disciplinary procedures, when taken as a whole, do not infringe the right to a fair hearing.

“The appeal centred on several constitutional matters, including an alleged lack of impartiality arising from the Council’s dual role in conducting preliminary investigations and making disciplinary determinations. The Court found that while this arrangement, taken in isolation, could appear to breach Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the disciplinary process as a whole – particularly the unrestricted right of appeal to the Court of Appeal – provides full safeguards to periti and satisfies the requirements of a fair hearing,” the statement reads.

KTP said it looks forward to further strengthening its disciplinary and regulatory functions in the months ahead, supported by the resources allocated in the recent budget and through partnerships with various public and private entities.