Chamber to reopen investigation into architects guilty of Miriam Pace house collapse

The Chamber of Architects will not take any disciplinary measures on the points already decided upon by a criminal court against the two architects found guilty of having caused the house collapse that killed Miriam Pace, in Santa Venera.

The Chamber said that as a regulator of the profession with the power of a quasi-judicial body, it was unable to institute action on the same charges the two architects were already found guilty of.

They were sentenced to over 800 hours of community service, in a decision delivered by Magistrate Joe Mifsud.

Roderick Camilleri was sentenced to 480 hours of community service and a €10,000 fine, while Anthony Mangion was sentenced to 400 hours of community service and an €8,000 fine.

The Chamber yesterday explained its inability to instantly revoke the warrants of the two men, after the criminal court decided it would not penalise them with a sentence of over one year’s imprisonment.

But the Chamber will reopen an investigation that had been suspended due to the criminal proceedings, unless the court decision is appealed: analyse the judgement to establish whether there are any disciplinary merits not covered by the criminal case, including breach of the code of conduct, breach of a directive of the Kamra, professional misconduct or negligence, and bringing the profession into disrepute.

An architect can lose his or her warrant in one of two ways: through a decision of the Council, and eventually of the Professional Conduct Board; or through a criminal conviction with a prison term of at least one year, even if suspended.

In the latter case, the revocation would be automatic and would not require a specific pronouncement on this point in the judgement.

All members of the profession form part of the Kamra tal-Periti automatically, and are subject to its disciplinary procedures. Expulsion from the Chamber would entail expulsion from the profession.

But such an expulsion can only happen following the suspension or revocation of a perit’s warrant in accordance with the law. This means it is the Chamber’s role to investigate any misconduct of architects.

As a quasi-judicial body, any disciplinary decision of the Chamber’s council can be appealed before the Court of Appeal.

The Chamber says that it cannot pronounce itself publicly on the merits of a case until its disciplinary proceedings are finalised. If it does, it would prejudice the relative conduct proceedings.

“One of the principles of natural justice is that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. This means the Council was unable to proceed with its investigation given that the specific charges were not made known to the Chamber until today,” the Chamber said on Thursday.

Also in March 2021, the Court had denied the Chamber’s request to be granted special access to the magisterial inquiry to extract any relevant information for its disciplinary investigation.

This means the Chamber cannot take any ulterior disciplinary measures on points already decided upon by the Criminal Court, as confirmed by its legal consultants and the Office of the Attorney General. 

What happens next?

The two investigations which had been hitherto suspended due to the criminal proceedings, will now be reopened by the Council to determine the following points:

1. Establish whether the prosecution or the convicted parties will file an appeal against the judgement. If so, the Council will need to await its outcome and proceed accordingly;
2. Analyse the charges and judgement to establish whether there are any disciplinary merits not covered by the criminal case, including breach of the code of conduct, breach of a directive of the Chamber, professional misconduct or negligence, and bringing the profession into disrepute.

“Beyond the merits of the criminal and disciplinary proceedings, the testimony brought before the Criminal Court, particularly that of the Court-appointed experts, has exposed serious flaws within the regulation of the industry that need to be addressed in earnest and with competence,” the Chamber said.

“The Chamber shall also continue monitoring the criminal proceedings instituted against the contractor and the worker involved to determine whether they bring to the fore any further systemic failures within the existing chaotic regulatory framework governing the industry.”

The Chamber has been campaigning on the need for reforms for several years, and published its own detailed proposals for reform in May 2019. More recently, it launched a public consultation on its redraft of the infamous Legal Notice 136 of 2019, which was heavily criticised during the criminal proceeding.