Law does not define 'immoral acts' - Court

The fundamental human rights of four men charged with immoral actions had been violated as the law did not lay down any guidelines as to what these actions consisted of, the Constitutional Court ruled today.

The judgement was delivered by Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef following a constitutional reference made by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the course of proceedings filed against Frank Cachia, Michael Ciappara, Mario Ciappara and Anthony Azzopardi.

The four men had been arraigned in court on various charges involving the premises “Maximus” in Bugibba, including alleged immoral actions. The police had taken action following reports of illegal activities consisting in the running of a brothel in the premises.

Defence counsel claimed that the fundamental human rights of the four accused had been violated because the law did not define what these immoral actions consisted in.

The Constitutional court declared that included with the right to a fair hearing was the right to know what a crime consisted in. Thus, each definition of a crime had to be clear so that an individual could know when he or she was violating the law. This was the principle of certainty of the law, which was intended to assist an accused person defend himself.

Case law of the European Court of Human Rights took into consideration the fact that however clearly drafted a law might be there was always an inevitable amount of judicial interpretation. Laws had to have a certain flexibility to handle changing circumstances and to avoid excessive rigidity.

When examining the facts of the case the court noted that the four men had been charged with prostitution but the facts behind the arrests were scantily dressed women dancing in the establishment, together with lap dancing, topless dancing and strip tease. The crux of the charges against the accunsed was therefore that of having committed immoral actions.

The law was not clear on what constituted an immoral action and this led to uncertainty of the law in violation of the four men’s fundamental human rights. The wording of the law meant that any investigation into the men’s guilt or innocence would almost wholly depend on the subjective opinion of the presiding judge.

The court therefore ordered the case to be sent back to the Court of Criminal Appeal which would be able to decide the case according to this judgment.