Two shooting club officials were cleared of criminal liability by a court that on Thursday observed that the neighbour claiming damage to his property, had himself illegally transformed a plot of barren land into a field.
The case kicked off with a criminal complaint filed by the owner of a plot in the vicinity of the Qormi Clay Shooting Club at Tal-Ħandaq.
He claimed that his field and the trees he had planted there were being damaged by lead pellets and clay pigeon fragments falling from the nearby shooting range.
Charges were eventually issued against Mark Ciantar as one of the club licensees, and Carmel Bugeja as the person responsible for running and monitoring operations at the club for allegedly causing involuntary damage to third-party property. They were also charged with harassment.
However, when delivering judgment, the court, presided over by Magistrate Simone Grech, observed that the prosecution had not produced evidence beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of Bugeja.
In fact, all relative club licences made reference to the other co-accused and third parties, but “the best evidence was certainly not put forward as to Bugeja’s alleged involvement” at the club.
For this reason, Bugeja was cleared of all criminal liability.
As for Ciantar, the court delved into the concept of vicarious liability, observing that the club official was charged in his capacity as representative of the club and not as “physically responsible” for the alleged harm suffered by the neighbour.
Based on the evidence at hand, the court declared that the shooting club had all the necessary licences in place to operate the range as it had, in fact, done for decades.
Neighbour transported soil, planted trees without permits
The owner of the neighbouring tenement had complained that his field and trees were being damaged by the falling lead pellets and clay pigeons landing on his property.
However, the court observed that the complainant had transformed the stretch of barren land into a cultivated plot, by transporting soil and planting trees without obtaining permission and knowing fully well that the site lay close to a shooting range.
Focusing on the alleged wrongdoing by the club, the court observed that adequate ‘active and constant’ surveillance was needed to ensure that the club abided by the law.
The prosecution also had to prove a link between the club activity and the damage caused, said the court, citing case law on this point.
In this case, this “chain of causation” had not been proved.
The prosecution failed to prove that Ciantar had failed to carry out adequate surveillance so as to ensure that the club abided by the law.
On the other hand, the complainant had acted in an abusive manner when transforming the barren land into a cultivated plot without obtaining the necessary permits.
No proof about alleged damage
He was “now complaining about the [club’s] activity which had been ongoing for decades and which, according to him, was causing damage to the illegal activity undertaken by him,” said the court.
The first charge concerning the alleged damage was thus not proven.
As for the second charge related to the alleged harassment, the prosecution had to prove the accused’s intention to harass the alleged victim, manifested through repetitive and willful behaviour.
The complainant had described the “inconvenience” caused by the accused as the official responsible for the club.
But the prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the alleged criminal activity was “specifically intended to harass” the complainant, observed the court, thus clearing the accused of all criminal liability.
Lawyers Edward Gatt and Marouska Debono were defence counsel.