Court refuses to annul disciplinary proceedings despite fair trial breach

An architect who was suspended by the Chamber of Architects over his role in the fatal 2020 Ħamrun building collapse has failed in a constitutional bid to overturn disciplinary proceedings against him, after a court ruled that despite structural flaws in the process, his rights were ultimately safeguarded through a full appeal.

The Civil Court, sitting in its constitutional capacity, delivered its judgment on Friday in the reference brought by architect Roderick Camilleri against the Chamber of Architects and the State Advocate, challenging the disciplinary sanction imposed in the aftermath of a fatal building collapse in Ħamrun in March 2020.

The case, arose after the collapse of a building owned by a third party resulted in the death of Miriam Pace. Camilleri had previously been found guilty of involuntary homicide and involuntary damage by the Magistrates’ Court in July 2021, a decision later upheld by the Criminal Court of Appeal in July 2022, which replaced a fine with a suspended two-year prison sentence contingent on good conduct.

Separately, the Chamber of Architects initiated disciplinary proceedings against Camilleri, finding him guilty of four professional shortcomings, including failing to formalise a written agreement, separating professional duties from company interests, preparing adequate demolition and excavation declarations, and providing sufficient condition reports. The committee suspended Camilleri’s warrant for 28 months.

Challenging this sanction, Camilleri argued before the Court of Appeal that the committee proceedings breached his fundamental rights, raising questions over whether the disciplinary proceedings determined criminal charges or civil rights, whether there was a violation of impartiality, and whether the presumption of innocence applied.

Judge Henri Mizzi found that the committee proceedings did not constitute criminal proceedings but did determine Camilleri’s civil rights and obligations. Applying established ECHR jurisprudence, namely the Engel Criteria, the court emphasised that the proceedings were aimed at regulating professional conduct and maintaining public trust rather than punishing criminally.

On the question of impartiality, the court agreed that the committee structure, acting simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator, represented a structural lack of objective impartiality. However, it held that this deficiency was remedied by the architect’s right to a full appeal before the Court of Appeal, which possesses independent jurisdiction to review both responsibility and penalty.

Regarding the presumption of innocence, the court concluded it was inapplicable as the disciplinary process did not involve criminal charges. Finally, the court ruled that the procedural breach at committee level was not serious enough to annul the proceedings, since the appellate review ensured a fair and impartial assessment of both the allegations and the sanction imposed.

Camilleri was represented by lawyers David Chetcuti Dimech and Arthur Azzopardi.