Not being a lawyer, I was somewhat puzzled by the correction to the Marsa Sports Club report provided by the Court Registrar. Presumably, the English translation of the comment by the court is the newspaper's and not the registrar's. "Noise pollution fi grad elevat" is not "high-grade noise pollution" but "high intensity noise pollution" or, in common parlance, "very loud noise".

It is a fact that we have not yet taken on board the appropriate EU directives. But, surely, there is no need to have a detailed list of sources of noise, such as types of fireworks, for the courts to be able to act. For instance, there is no list of types of church bells and their associated noise levels, yet, in the Senglea case the complaint against the main church clock was upheld on the basis of the extremely high noise level its chimes produced at the plaintiff's house. And that is a logical conclusion, as there is an accepted correspondence between ambient noise levels and damage to the hearing organs.

Such information is used in cases of industrial disputes on working conditions, where courts are frequently involved.

All the court needed to do was to commission some noise measurements during a standard festa barrage. This quite apart from application of existing regulation against murtali tal-ftuħ, which I am under the impression does exist. So was the court correct or merely anti-golf in the matter of the Marsa Sports Club?