Court acquits Sliema restaurateur as judge rules public official respect must be ‘reciprocal’

A criminal appeals court has revoked a 2025 judgment against Elaine Mulcahy, co-manager of La Vida Bar de Tapas, who had originally been found guilty of breaching COVID-19 social distancing standards, failing to register her food premises, and obstructing officials during a 2021 inspection.

In her appeal, Mulcahy challenged the legal basis of the COVID-19 standards issued by the Superintendent of Public Health. Her defence argued that the state of public health emergency had ended in June 2020 and that the subsequent standards lacked a valid legal foundation.

The appellant noted that a state of emergency was declared on 1st April 2020, but was made retroactive to 7th March. This was described as a “strange April Fool’s joke” intended to “validate the various stringent measures that had been undertaken without the necessary declaration in place”.

While the Court of Appeal ultimately disagreed with this grievance, ruling that Article 34(2) of Chapter 465 provides the Superintendent with broad powers to issue directions regardless of a formal emergency, it found several failings in the prosecution’s specific evidence.

The court found that the evidence regarding social distancing was legally insufficient. Environmental Health Practitioners Imran Shaik and Jason Mifsud presented photos of a distance meter showing readings of 1.296m and 0.620m between tables.

However, the court ruled that this measurement method was “flawed”. According to the applicable standards, officials were required to measure the distance from the “front of one chair to the front of the chair behind” or the “back to back distance between chairs”, which should be 3m and 2m respectively. Furthermore, the court noted that the first court had entirely ignored a diary containing a week’s worth of contact tracing details, which corroborated Mulcahy's claim of compliance.

A central component of the acquittal involved the conduct of the inspectors. Mulcahy testified that the officials, who were not in uniform or wearing lanyards, refused to show identification when requested. She stated they told her it was “none of her business” and that she had “no rights”, while threatening her with arrest. Mulcahy further testified that the incident left her suffering from post-traumatic stress.

The court emphasised that authorised officers have a legal mandate to provide identification upon request. The judge remarked that if officials expect cooperation, they must follow the law themselves. “The respect should be reciprocal,” she said. The court found that since the officers failed to identify themselves, Mulcahy could not be held liable for failing to provide her particulars or for obstruction.

The court also cleared Mulcahy of failing to register the premises. It pointed out that premises only require registration if it is used for a food business for three or more days within a three-week period. As the inspectors only visited on a single evening, they failed to prove the establishment met this legal threshold.

Revoking the €550 fine and the original conviction, the court acquitted Mulcahy of all charges.

Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Jacob Magri appeared for Mulcahy.