Appeals court confirms €30,000 fines for Gozitan directors over workplace safety failings

The Court of Criminal Appeal has flatly rejected an appeal lodged by five directors of a Gozo-based construction company, confirming an accumulation of €30,000 in fines over serious occupational health and safety breaches.

Madam Justice Natasha Galea Sciberras delivered the final judgement upholding the penalties originally handed down to Joseph, Raymond, William, Mariano, and Ronnie Gatt.

The directors had been prosecuted in their personal capacities as well as in their official capacities as board members of several intertwined family businesses, including Gatt Enterprises Limited and Gatt Tarmac Limited. The companies operate out of the “Gatt Ready Mix” plant located in Gozo.

On 11 December 2024, the Court of Magistrates found Mariano and Ronnie Gatt guilty as directors of Gatt Enterprises Limited. Simultaneously, Joseph, Raymond, and William Gatt were found guilty as directors of Gatt Tarmac Limited. Each of the five defendants were sentenced to pay an individual fine of €6,000, amounting to a combined financial penalty of €30,000.

The case arose from an industrial incident on 2 May 2017, where an employee suffered grievous injuries. Back then, the directors were charged with failing to safeguard the health and safety of individuals, failing to carry out adequate, sufficient, and systematic health and safety risk assessments, failing to maintain up-to-date physical or electronic records of required hazard evaluations, and failing to install, provide, and properly maintain the necessary workplace safety and warning signs.

In their appeal, the directors contended that the prosecution had not reached the required criminal standard of proof to establish guilt. They remarkably insisted that the entire matter should be legally classified merely as a vehicular accident, since the incident was triggered when another employee was operating a motor vehicle.

The defence further claimed that the prosecution was legally bound to explicitly prove who owned the physical title of the land, and heavily emphasised the alleged contributory negligence of the injured victim.

The directors also argued that the punishment was overly harsh, claiming that the fines should have been levied against only one director per company, or divided amongst the board members rather than imposed individually.

The court firmly dismissed the directors’ attempt to classify the incident as a simple traffic accident. The court observed that the nature of criminal proceedings is defined entirely by the specific charges brought forward by the prosecution. In this case, the police did not charge the directors with involuntary bodily harm under or with traffic offences, but rather with explicit violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act.

The judge similarly threw out the argument regarding land ownership. The court emphasised that under occupational safety laws, criminal liability does not rest automatically on the landowner, but rather on the employer.

Evidence submitted throughout the proceedings showed that the victim was an employee of Gatt Tarmac Limited, while the other worker involved was employed by Gatt Enterprises Limited. Both were actively performing their duties on behalf of their respective employers at the Għajnsielem plant. Therefore, the plant legally constituted their designated workplace, making the ownership of the underlying real estate entirely irrelevant.

Furthermore, the court ruled that any alleged contributory negligence on the part of the injured worker could not exonerate the employers from their statutory health and safety obligations.

Regarding the severity of the €6,000 individual fines, the Court of Criminal Appeal found absolutely no reason to vary the sentences.

Madam Justice Galea Sciberras pointed out that the Court of Magistrates had the legal authority to impose effective prison sentences, or maximum fines of up to €11,646 per individual. By opting for mid-range fines and completely avoiding custodial sentences, the first court had appropriately calibrated the penalty to reflect the gravity of the systemic safety omissions.

Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the directors’ appeal in its entirety and confirmed the judgement and financial penalties in full.