Lawyers head for Europe over pole dancing case
Highest court rules judges and magistrates can define ‘immoral acts
The Constitutional Court of Appeal yesterday upheld an argument by the Attorney General that judges and magistrates are perfectly able to define “immoral acts” and the law does not require a definition.
The ruling reverses a Constitutional Court judgement last year, which found that the fundamental human rights of four men had been violated when they were charged with immoral actions, because the law was not clear on what consisted such actions.
Having now exhausted all local legal remedies, the men’s lawyers will be taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The men – Frank Cachia, 38, of Msida, Michael Ciappara, 72, of Cospicua, Mario Ciappara, 37, of Qawra and Anthony Azzopardi, 29, of Ħamrun – had been arraigned on various charges, including that of running a brothel, involving the Maximus premises in Buġibba. Police had found four Romanian girls wearing bikinis or underwear, pole dancing and sitting at the bar of Maximus chatting to customers.
The four men were, however, acquitted of the charges in 2008.
The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the defence claimed their fundamental human rights had been breached because the law did not define immoral actions. The lawyers requested that the case be referred to the Constitutional Court.
This court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, declared that the right to know what a crime consisted of was included with the right to a fair hearing, noting that the men had been charged with prostitution but the arrests were prompted by scantily dressed women dancing in the establishment, as well as lap dancing, topless dancing and strip tease.
The Attorney General appealed from this judgement, arguing that the judiciary had the liberty to define what, in its opinion, was moral or immoral.
The Constitutional Appeals Court yesterday upheld this argument. Mr Justices Tonio Mallia, Giannino Caruana Curran and Geoffrey Valenzia ruled “there is no lack of certainty in the law which makes it impossible for a member of the judiciary to decide whether an act was immoral or not”.
Therefore there was no breach of human rights in this case.
Following the judgement, the men’s lawyers, Edward Gatt and Therese Comodini Cachia, yesterday insisted that because the law was unclear on what constituted an immoral action it led to uncertainty of the law and this was in violation of their clients’ fundamental human rights.