A court has revoked an injunction provisionally upheld against the Malta Shooting Sport Federation upon the request of a group of residents inconvenienced by the activity taking place at the nearby Bidnija shooting range.

After attempts to reach some sort of amicable solution failed, four homeowners living in the limits of Mosta and St Paul’s Bay filed an application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction in a bid to block shooting activity at the range on Triq is-Sagra Familja, Bidnija.

They argued that the range was being operated illegally, with certain structures not covered by necessary building permits.

The inconvenience suffered by these neighbours stemmed from elevated sound levels as confirmed by an engineer, tasked by the applicants to measure the sounds emanating from the range.

On average, sound levels exceeded 60dB(A) and sometimes reached 70dB(A) when the limit was 55dB(A), the report said.

Moreover, activity at the range was also detrimental to the surrounding environment since large quantities of lead pellets and spent cartridges ended up in the vicinity of the residents’ homes.

However, the federation rebutted that such an injunction could only be upheld if it was necessary to stop any activity that could prejudice the applicants’ rights, rather than to block an activity that had been taking place for many years.

It said the sport has been practiced on the island since 1975 and the Bidnija range was “the cradle” of such activity.

The applicants had acquired permits to build their residences well aware of the existence of the shooting range nearby, argued the respondents.

As for the alleged illegalities, reference was made to a car park that was covered in tarmac rather than cobblestones, for use during the Small Nations Games.

A government guarantee payable to MEPA had also been overlooked, but the matter was being remedied after consultation with Sport Malta, the federation said.

Scattered pellets and cartridges landed on third-party fields which were regularly ‘cleaned up.’

When delivering its decision on whether to confirm the injunction or not, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey, observed that two principal elements were to be considered for this purpose, namely whether the injunction was necessary to safeguard the applicants’ rights and whether those rights existed at first glance.

For the purposes of these proceedings alone, such illegalities claimed by the residents might not necessarily justify confirmation of the injunction.

Having said that, the court stressed it did not “want to be understood as though it condoned and/or accepted any illegal use of property and any activity not covered by the necessary permits.”

Beyond the injunction proceedings, the applicants had already expressed their intention of pursuing the matter further in court so that their claims may be dealt with in greater depth.

Independently of its decision on the injunction, the court ordered a copy of its decree to be sent to the Police Commissioner and the Planning Authority to investigate and take any action they deemed appropriate, also granting them access to the case records.

The court felt “legally and morally correct in not closing its eyes” to the alleged illegalities at the range, entrusting the relative authorities with scrutiny of the matter.

However, the injunction obtained provisionally by the applicants could not be confirmed.

The sound test was “too limited” to prove the alleged inconvenience at first glance, given that sound levels were recorded from the residence closest to the range and sounds at weekends did not generally prove to be “excessive” as alleged.

As for the alleged environmental harm, the court upheld the arguments of the federation and concluded that the applicants had failed to prove its prima facie rights.

Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo assisted the respondents.