Case Summary and Outcome

On April 28, 2017, the Constitutional Court of Malta ruled that the plaintiff Ignatius Busuttil’s right to freedom of expression had been violated by police officials. The case stemmed from three incidents where the Busuttil was forcibly removed from Auberge Castille Square by police under the pretext of parking violations. After the first incident, Busuttil returned twice to peacefully protest actions of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) by displaying posters on his parked car which led to his arrest and being sent to a mental health facility for evaluation. The Court had to determine whether the police’s actions were motivated by an intention to silence Busuttil’s protests, thus violating his freedom of expression, or whether their actions were justified due to the Busuttil’s alleged breaches of the law and concerns for public safety. The Court found the actions of the police to be disproportionate, while acknowledging the police’s reasonable concern for the plaintiff’s mental health. The Constitutional Court reduced the compensation awarded to the plaintiff from €2,000 to €1,000, deeming this an appropriate remedy for the breach of his right to freedom of expression.

Facts

On August 4, 2014, the plaintiff Ignatius Busuttil parked his car near Castille Square to try to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss grievances he had with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA). Since he did not have an appointment with the Prime Minister, he was not able to enter the building and returned a few minutes later to find he had been issued a parking ticket. After speaking with the Police about the ticket, he refused to leave and sat on the Castille steps until police officers  arrived to take him to the Valletta Police Station. [p. 3]

On August 5, 2014, Mr. Busuttil returned to Castille Square to protest against MEPA, displaying posters on his car. He parked near the statue of George Borg Olivier but was informed by police that he was improperly parked on a double yellow line. After refusing to move his vehicle, Mr. Busuttil was taken to the Valletta Police Station, where he was required to make a statement before being released. [p. 3]

On August 8, 2014, the plaintiff returned once more, again parking in the same location with posters displayed inside his vehicle. The on-duty police officer instructed him to remove the car, but he refused. The plaintiff was arrested and taken to Valletta Police Station, then to Floriana Health Centre under the police’s claim that he had mental health issues. Mr. Busuttil was then taken to the Police General Headquarters, where he was questioned. He was later transferred to Mater Dei Hospital and, after examination, admitted to Mount Carmel Hospital under an emergency order. The plaintiff was further examined, found to require no treatment, and released the following day. [p. 3]

Mr. Busuttil alleged that his treatment by the police violated his right to freedom of expression. [p. 4] On September 26, 2016, the First Hall of the Civil Court ruled in his favour, finding that his rights under Article 41 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. [p. 6] The Court denounced the police’s actions as an excessive and unjustified interference with the plaintiff’s right to protest, noting that their conduct sought to suppress his expression under the pretext of parking violations.

This decision was appealed by the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General on October 13, 2016. [p. 1]

Decision Overview

Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo, and Justice Noel Cuschieri of the Constitutional Court of Malta presided over the case. The central issue before the Court was whether the police’s actions violated Mr. Busuttil’s right to freedom of expression as protected by Article 41 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr. Busuttil argued that the police infringed upon his right to freedom of expression through repeated arrests, forced removal from his peaceful protests at Castille Square, and excessive actions, including hospitalisation at Mount Carmel. He maintained that his protests were calm, silent, and non-violent, intended solely to draw attention to his grievances with MEPA. Mr. Busuttil contended that his actions did not fall under the exceptions allowing restrictions on freedom of expression, such as those necessary for public safety or crime prevention. He alleged that the police were primarily concerned with suppressing the content of his protest, as evidenced by their demand to remove protest posters and their disproportionate interventions.

In response, the Commissioner of Police contended that the police acted lawfully and within the bounds of Article 41(2) of the Constitution, which permits restrictions on freedom of expression for public security or order. The defence argued that the plaintiff’s illegal parking in all three instances justified their intervention, as his actions posed a potential risk to public order. They claimed that the measures taken were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

The Court was tasked with determining whether the police’s actions were motivated by an intention to silence the plaintiff’s protests, thus violating his freedom of expression, or whether their actions were justified due to the plaintiff’s alleged breaches of the law and concerns for public safety. Furthermore, the Court examined whether the measures taken by the police were proportionate to the perceived risks.

The Court reviewed the facts and upheld the decision of the First Court, concluding that the police’s primary concern was to suppress the plaintiff’s protest rather than enforce parking regulations. The judges highlighted that the plaintiff’s car, allegedly the source of concern, was left parked illegally until the plaintiff returned from the police station and moved it himself. The Court observed that “the concerns of the police were to silence the plaintiff rather than keep him from parking in breach of the law.” [p. 20]

The Court noted that the disproportionate response of calling multiple police officers, arresting the plaintiff, and interrogating him for illegal parking was unwarranted. The judges stated that a proportionate response would have been to issue a fine or tow the vehicle, which would have resolved the matter. [p. 21] The Court further opined that the police were likely motivated by a desire to prevent the plaintiff from publicising his protest in front of the Prime Minister’s office. The Court emphasized that “[t]he right to protest is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression – and that is how it should remain – not in principle but because that is required in the best interest of a country’s democracy.” [p. 6]

However, the Court diverged from the First Court’s criticism of the police for taking the plaintiff to a mental health facility. It found that this decision was not purely punitive or humiliating. The plaintiff’s statements, such as “I am out of sorts” and “Be wary of me because I do not know if I can control my behaviour,” combined with his admission of receiving but not following psychiatric treatment, provided justification for the police’s decision to seek medical advice. [pp. 21-22]

As a result, the Constitutional Court reduced the compensation awarded to the plaintiff from €2,000 to €1,000, deeming this an appropriate remedy for the breach of his right to freedom of expression while acknowledging the police’s reasonable concern for the plaintiff’s mental health.