From Dr M-A Farrugia LL.D

In his contribution of 27 April in The Malta Independent on Sunday, columnist Jacques Rene’ Zammit stated: “On 28 March, Malta Constitutional Court held that a topless woman is considered by Maltese society as being indecently dressed.” This is not correct.

The case your columnist referred to never made it to the Constitutional Court, which therefore did not pronounce itself in any way on this matter. On 28 March the First Hall of the Civil Court, in the case The Police vs. Lorraine Falzon, gave judgment in a reference made by the Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) as to whether article 338 (q) of the Criminal Code was in violation of article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the alleged ground that the expression “indecently dressed: was vague and uncertain. Article 338 (q) states: “Every person is guilty of a contravention against public order who in the harbours, on the seashore or in any other public place, exposes himself naked or is indecently dressed.”

The First Hall of the Civil Court held that there was no such vagueness or uncertainty as regards topless bathing in public in view of the notices in various localities near the seashore stating that topless bathing was not allowed. In view of these notices it was “reasonably foreseeable” that the person concerned would be arraigned in court on a charge of being indecently dressed in a public place, and therefore there was no question of a violation of article 7 of the aforementioned Convention.

No appeal was lodged with the Constitutional Court.

Marse-Ann Farrugia

Judicial Assistant and Legal Secretary

Office of the Chief Justice