Court declares definition of 'inhabited area' in fireworks law as null
A court ruled today that the definition of "inhabited area" in the law governing the granting of permits for the letting off of fireworks was in violation of a family's fundamental human right to privacy and to freedom from discrimination.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Raymond C Pace in a constitutional application filed by Frederick Zammit Maempel, his wife Suzette and his children Julian and Martina against the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General. The Saint Helen Fireworks Association later intervened into the suit.
The Zammit Maempels told the court that they lived in Vincenz Galea Street, San Gwann in an area where fireworks were set off for the feasts of St Helen and St Anthony. The area was inhabited by fewer than 100 persons.
The Zammit Maempels pleaded that every time fireworks were let off, they were at serious risk of damage to themselves and their property, and they also suffered damages as a result of falling debris. They had complained of this situation to the Police Commissioner for years but the situation had not been resolved. Although the Ombudsman had decided in their favour, the Police Commissioner had again issued a licence to the Fireworks Association to let off fireworks.
They claimed that the law governing the issue of licences for fireworks did not protect their legitimate interests as it defined an inhabited area as an area inhabited by more than 100 persons. Furthermore the law did not provide for the publication of applications for licences and for the participation of residents in the debate as to whether a licence should be issued or not.
The Zammit Maempels requested a declaration from the courts that their fundamental human rights had been violated and for the courts to grant them a remedy.
The court noted that the Ombudsman had concluded that the Police Commissioner ought not to have issued the licences and this upon the findings of a group of experts on the matter.
The court found that the dischrge of fireworks from the areas complained of constituted an inconvenience and was a cause of serious damage to the Zammit Maempel family and was thereore in violation of their right to privacy. The law granted protection from fireworks to persons who lived in an area inhabited by over 100 persons but not to persons where the numbers were fewer.
The definition of what constituted an inhabited area did not bring about a balance between interference by a public authority and what was necessary to protect the privacy of an individual. The danger, risks and damages to which the Zammit Maempels were being exposed were very great when compared to the grant of a licence for fireworks.
The court also found that the legal definition brought about discrimination between different groups of persons.
Mr Justice Pace concluded his judgment by finding in favour of the Zammit Maempels and by ruling that the definition of an inhabited area violated their rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination. The court declared the definition to be null and void in the context of the letting off of fireworks.
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
John A. Portelli
Mar 27th 2009, 10:20
==>>corrected
At last someone with common sense.
A person living in a zone with less than 100 inhabitants still deserve the right to enjoy of any other citizen.
The 100 residents clause is nothing more but DISCRIMINATORY against these citizens rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination. The court declaring the definition to be null and void in the context of the letting off of fireworks should be applied to other activities that can in some way endanger even a single human life.
After all traditions do not protect human lives, on the contrary, many so called traditions are a nuisance to fellow citizens.
I am quite sure that these below traditionalist and cluture protectors WILL NOT BE HAPPY TO HAVE such a danger and inconvenience next to their home and they would be the first to object to such activity, but it is fine with them if this is next to someone else.
John A. Portelli
Mar 27th 2009, 10:06
At last someone with common sense.
A person living in a zone with less than 100 inhabitants still deserve the right to enjoy of any other citizen.
The 100 residents clause is nothing more but DISCRIMINATORY against these citizens rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination. The court declaring the definition to be null and void in the context of the letting off of fireworks should not be applied to other activities that can in some way endanger even a single human life.
After all traditions do not protect human lives, on the contrary, many so called traditions are a nuisance to fellow citizens.
I am quite sure that these below traditionalist and cluture protectors WILL NOT BE HAPPY TO HAVE such a danger and inconvenience next to their home and they would be the first to object to such activity, but it is fine with them if this is next to someone else.
A.Zahra
Mar 27th 2009, 07:21
"The court found that the discharge of fireworks from the areas complained of constituted an inconvenience and was a cause of serious damage to the Zammit Maempel family and was therefore in violation of their right to privacy"
Did the court define what constitutes an inconvenience. I know thousands of people to whom fireworks especially the choreographed cloured shell types are not an inconvenience whereas cranes carrying tones of weight and over their head and their private property are.
Our law regarding fireworks are simply outdated and in for a serious revision rather than simple cosmetic changes. Our law regulating the let off of fireworks still to this date differentiates shells purely and simply on the merit of shell calibre rather than shell volume , weight and chemical content. Some shells are pretty safe at a distance of 50 meters whereas others are not even safe at half a kilometre away.
Clemens Hasengschwandtner
Mar 27th 2009, 03:24
Uweja, fireworks are quite nice and somehow also very embedded in the Maltese culture. The only thing they should stop is this loud bombs which are not beautiful at all and create nothing else than noise.
R Grech
Mar 26th 2009, 22:48
At LAST
Mark Galea
Mar 26th 2009, 21:29
Well done.
Now to get over with those factories near inhabited areas.
And even more important, STOPPING new permits.
Seems these factories grow like mushrooms.
Michael Neville Cassar
Mar 26th 2009, 20:51
Well done ,about time somebody puts his foot down, fire works not only is dangerous but children get shocked when asleep and damage hearing .
Simon Mifsud
Mar 26th 2009, 20:45
So another tradition down the drain. Systematically, many so called maltese are trying to ruin the maltese traditions and instead put foreign traditions such as halloween in Swieqi in our society. first they began by eliminating the Maltese language from everywhere even the Government himself forbids its clerk from writing the minutes in files in Maltese and also by putting signs in Mater Dei Hospital in English. Now fireworks are a no no in our feasts, I wonder what the tourists will one day come to see which is different from their country.
Antoine Grima
Mar 26th 2009, 20:30
OOoHhh! We would never dare to touch the Maltese Tradition!! We do not care about anyone who is bed-ridden. We do not care about anyone who works night shifts. We WANT the BANG! We wake up - and so have you! Hospitals? What hospitals? Lest we forget the Naxxar accident. But all for our Patron Saint!
N.Grima
Mar 26th 2009, 18:40
A good judgement to say the least... a very important and satisfying precedent if the judgement survives the appeal.
L. Brincat
Mar 26th 2009, 18:31
@ Kevin Camilleri: It's about time you update yourself... Fireworks were let off from Floriana at the last Msida feast!!! :)
carmel callus
Mar 26th 2009, 18:07
What a farce!
kevin camilleri
Mar 26th 2009, 18:01
GOOD SHOW!!! NOW PLEASE SOMEONE STOP THE LETTING OFF OF FIREWORKS IN FRONT OF ST.PHILIPS HOSPITAL FOR THE MSIDA FEAST!!!!