Judge blasts definition of inhabited area in fireworks licences law

A court yesterday ruled that the definition of an "inhabited area" in the law governing licences for fireworks displays was in violation of a family's fundamental human right to privacy and to freedom from discrimination.

The Zammit Maempel family told the court they lived in Vinċenz Galea Street, San Ġwann in an area where fireworks were let off for the feasts of St Helen and St Anthony. The area is inhabited by fewer than 100 people. Each time fireworks were let off, the family said it was at serious risk of being injured and property being damaged. They also suffered damages as a result of falling debris.

The family said it had complained 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 St Helen Fireworks Association to let off fireworks.

The Zammit Maempels claimed that the law governing the issue of licences for fireworks did not protect their legitimate interests as it defined an inhabited area as a zone occupied by over 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.

Mr Justice Raymond C. Pace noted that the Ombudsman had concluded that the Police Commissioner ought not to have issued the licences and this based on the findings of a group of experts on the matter.

The court added that it had been asked to examine the validity of the law governing fireworks insofar as that law defined what constituted an inhabited area. The discharge of fireworks from the areas complained of constituted an inconvenience and caused serious damage to the Zammit Maempel family. That was therefore 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 those 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 big when compared to the granting 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 by finding in favour of the Zammit Maempels, 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.