An Appeals Court has overturned a €1,000 contempt fine against Correctional Services Agency director Christopher Siegersma.

The case arose from criminal proceedings against accused Paschalino Cefai. His late arrival to court was the reason why the contempt proceedings against the director arose.

On the day in question, the court had found the prison director guilty of contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of €1,000 within twenty-four hours.

In its decree, the Magistrates' Court held it was an affront to the authority of the court for the Corradino Correctional Facility (CCF) to fail to bring an accused person to court on time for a scheduled hearing.

It also stated that the information given to the Assistant Registrar of the Gozo Courts had been nothing more than an excuse and a lie intended to exonerate the authorities at CCF from their failure to bring the accused in time.

Christopher Siegersma challenged the ruling on appeal, arguing the contempt conviction was unjust and unsupported by law. He maintained the facts of the case did not fall within the provisions governing contempt committed in the face of the court.

He pointed out the Magistrates' Court had not even specified the legal provision on which it had relied and argued that, since he had not been present in the courtroom, the court could not treat the matter as one of immediate contempt committed before it.

He also argued he had filed an urgent revocation request on the same day, 29 January 2026, but had never received any decree on it. He further questioned how the lower court could order payment of the fine within twenty-four hours when the law itself allows two days to file an appeal.

Siegersma also insisted the conduct attributed to him did not amount to contempt of court at all. He said he had never communicated personally with the Assistant Registrar of the Gozo Courts and that any communication had, if anything, been made by a CCF official.

He added the CSA could not be held responsible for the operation delays of Gozo Channel crossings, over which it had no control. He objected to being held personally liable when any acts complained of had occurred in the course of his official duties as director.

The Court of Appeal began by examining the lower court's decree and found it failed to indicate the legal provision under which the director had been found guilty. The court said the law on contempt committed in the face of the court applies only to acts that actually take place during the sitting itself, such as inappropriate words or conduct in the courtroom.

The court emphasised only contempt committed in facie curiae, that is, in the actual presence of the judge or magistrate during the hearing, may be dealt with immediately by that same court.

By contrast, where the alleged contempt does not occur in the face of the court, the proper course is different: proceedings must be initiated by the Registrar, acting as plaintiff, after receiving an order from the court to start contempt proceedings.

The court noted Maltese jurisprudence has consistently treated examples such as hostile comments in court or disruptive conduct during a hearing as contempt in facie curiae.

But it also pointed out that other situations, including the non-appearance of a witness, the absence of a prosecutor, non-compliance with a court order, or obstruction of a court officer executing a warrant have not been treated as contempt committed in the face of the court. These situations require separate proceedings.

Applying those principles to the case at hand, the Court of Appeal held the magistrate in Gozo could not herself convict Siegersma and immediately impose a €1,000 fine.

If the magistrate believed the director had shown disrespect to the court because the accused had not been brought in on time and because false excuses had allegedly been given to the Assistant Registrar, then the proper course was to order the Registrar of the Courts to institute contempt proceedings against the director in terms of Article 1003A of Chapter 12.

Because procedure had not been followed, the Court of Appeal found the lower court's decision could not stand.

The court therefore upheld the appeal and revoked the decision of the Court of Magistrates insofar as it had condemned the director to pay a fine of €1,000. It also ordered that each party should bear its own costs.

The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Judges Justice Robert G. Mangion and Simone Grech.