Waylon Johnston
Court case against MFA president goes up in smoke
Malta Football Association president Joe Mifsud was yesterday cleared of smoking in a public place after being charged under the wrong regulation.
The case dates back to August 29, 2006 when he was alleged to have smoked for over an hour during a press conference at the stadium.
The Times journalist Rosanne Zammit testified in court that, at the press conference, she had asked Dr Mifsud whether he could see the irony of smoking during a news conference on sport in a place where the law had banned smoking.
Dr Mifsud was then charged under article three of the legal notice entitled "smoking in premises open to the public" which states that smoking is banned in any enclosed private or public space except for a designated smoking room.
However, the word premises is defined in the legal notice as being a place where food and drink is served with or without payment.
Article six of the same legal notice says that no person shall smoke in any workspace or public place except in a designated smoking room. Dr Mifsud was not charged under this article, but article three.
Magistrate Jacqueline Padovani found there was no way that Dr Mifsud could be found guilty as the prosecution did not prove that food or drink were being served in the conference room.
During the proceedings Dr Mifsud, arguing his case, had told a principal health inspector that she should re-read the law about smoking because she had misinterpreted it.
He maintained that the ban in question was restricted to restaurants and bars whereas he had lit up in a room within the Centenary Stadium at Ta' Qali.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J. Borg
Jan 16th 2009, 20:08
Dr. Mifsud credibility and self-respect would have been positively affected if he had simply acknowledged his mistake (in smoking), apologised and moved on.......but such respectfull action is a rariety in big heads.
P.Camilleri
Jan 16th 2009, 16:38
Nomatter what the Court decided, the MFA President was very lucky to walk out of Court Scot free. Just because the wrong article was quoted,it does not mean that the accused is innocent. These are all tricks of the trade known only by the 'fortunate' few
c.camilleri
Jan 16th 2009, 16:05
Incompetence or negligence call it what you want has let Dr. Mifsud go free. Imagine if the case concerned drugs or murder.
David Agius
Jan 16th 2009, 15:40
We can say the same about a particular lawyer, an ex-party leader candidate, who used to light up in the court corridors, and another party president from the other side who on being told not to smoke in the corridors of the counting hall quickly decided to extinguish it in the wall to spite the police around.
Examples of our so well behaving politicians as well.
Charles Falzon
Jan 16th 2009, 14:38
( taxpayers pay their salaries)
Hospital Consultants and other categories of workers are paid from the taxpayers, and are not always present at their place of work.
A good number of high ranking officials use the excuse of 'attending a meeting'.
Why pick on Police?
Perhaps it is only the Police that are paid many months late for their extra duties, but that is rarely mentioned.
If we see a policeman smoking in uniform on some long fixed-point duty we cry foul.
J Farrugia
Jan 16th 2009, 13:40
insomma this is just another turn around by the magistrate to absolve the mfa president from wrongdoing. "premises is defined in the legal notice as being a place where food and drink is served with or without payment." this is just playing with words. Was he smoking in a no smoking area or was he not. Was he smoking in a public area? if yes he is guilty. if not, the police should not have introduced the case. Once again police incompetence at its best. And a bit of help from the bench to a fellow advocate. If it was me smoking, I would have had the book thrown at me, because I am no lawyer and neither am I presidnet of the mfa.
a mifsud
Jan 16th 2009, 13:37
With or without the court case, this shows the arrogance of Joe Mifsud, a person in a prominent position, who feels he is above the law.
Charles Sammut
Jan 16th 2009, 13:36
Surely he will be charged with conspiracy to smoke in a public place. It is the trend now.
Joe Cordina
Jan 16th 2009, 12:27
Although not found guilty due to a technical error, Joe Mifsud should be ashamed of himself and apologise for his arrogance.
Charles Micallef
Jan 16th 2009, 11:57
Yet another episode of "Only in Malta"
Joe Vassallo
Jan 16th 2009, 10:32
And we taxpayers pay their salaries……..wow!!
Didn’t they read the LN??
Ingrid Jones-cameron
Jan 16th 2009, 10:07
And are police immune to the law when they smoke and have a beer at a bar while on duty?
Philip Sultana
Jan 16th 2009, 09:40
Is this incompetence of the prosecutors? On another subject, are police officers allowed to smoke while in uniform?