The defence counsel of a Romanian girl who has ended up in court after allegedly dancing topless in a cubicle within a bar insisted in court today that the laws did not properly define what was indecent and immoral.

Luciana Loredana Secan, 21, from Romania, has been accused of offending public morality by exposing herself indecently in the Déjà Vu Bar.

Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi said when the case continued to be heard in court this morning that he feared that because of a lack of proper definition, judges and magistrates could end up taking decisions on the basis of their own opinions.

He quoted from a judgement in a similar case handed down by Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono who had said that : Whatever the views of the court, in the absence of clear definitions of what could or could not amount to immoral purposes, the court understood that this issue could remain a subjective one. Apart from factors of time, place and circumstances, the issue also depended on the psychological and moral make-up of the adjudicator. There could be cases where the circumstances showed the judge that the acts under consideration were done for an immoral purpose, but the same circumstances may be less obvious for another judge.

Magistrate Edwina Grima then suspended proceedings until Justice Joseph R Micallef gives a constitutional ruling on this point on February 3.

Meanwhile, a court also continued to hear the case filed separately against the owner of the Déjà Vu Bar, Marco Bonnici.

Superintendent Stephen Gatt told the court how the police had entered the bar at around 3 a.m. on Sunday morning. The place was full of skimpily dressed foreign dancers and a topless Ms Secani was found dancing topless in a cubicle behind the counter.

The superintendent said the property was not licensed for this sort of thing.

Dr Azzopardi asked the officer which law precluded these things. The superintendent said the laws laid down that no immoral acts could be performed.

The lawyer pointed out that within a short distance of the court, there were books selling Playboy and other similar magazines. Were they violating the laws too?

He then asked the magistrate to suspend the sitting so that, accompanied by the police, he could buy a copy of Playboy.

The police refused.

The case continues.