Three officials linked to the Gozo Ministry have been acquitted of all charges in connection with the death of a 52-year-old worker who was crushed when the roof of a public toilet collapsed during renovation works in Dwejra in March 2021.

The Gozo court cleared Joseph Cutajar, Vicky Xuereb and Joseph Xuereb of charges including involuntary homicide and multiple breaches of occupational health and safety regulations, after concluding that the demolition work which led to Carmel Attard's death had never been authorised.

The court found that although several safety measures required for demolition work had not been implemented, the prosecution had failed to establish that the three accused bore criminal responsibility for those shortcomings.

Attard lost his life on 18 March 2021, when part of the concrete roof of the public toilets in Dwejra, San Lawrenz, collapsed while renovation works were underway. Officers responding to the incident found Attard trapped beneath the rubble. Emergency services were called to the scene, but he was certified dead shortly afterwards.

At the time, Attard was employed by the Community Work Scheme Enterprise Foundation and had been assigned to carry out maintenance works for the Gozo Ministry.

The three accused held different positions within the ministry. Cutajar was director of EcoGozo, Vicky Xuereb was director general within the ministry's Strategy and Support Division, while Joseph Xuereb was responsible for the day-to-day management of the maintenance workers.

Following a magisterial inquiry and investigations by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, criminal proceedings were instituted against all three.

Roof demolition had not been authorised

The court heard that the workers had originally been assigned to carry out internal renovation works, including removing tiles and flooring from the public toilets. However, the scope of the works changed when concerns arose about the condition of the roof.

Architect Matthew Casha had inspected the building and concluded that the roof needed replacing. Nevertheless, he had not issued instructions for demolition to begin. The court heard that the architect was still preparing a bill of quantities to establish the costs of the proposed works before the necessary administrative decisions could be taken.

Despite this, work on dismantling the roof began before formal authorisation had been granted.

Evidence showed that Joseph Xuereb, the workers' foreman, had reprimanded Attard after learning that demolition work had started without permission. He instructed the workers to stop dismantling the roof and to concentrate on clearing the rubble the following day.
The court accepted that these instructions had been given and that the demolition work was not part of the tasks originally assigned to the maintenance team.

In its judgment, the court concluded that the demolition had begun on Attard's own initiative, without the necessary authorisation.

Court examines responsibility for workplace safety

A central issue in the proceedings concerned who was legally responsible for ensuring the workers' health and safety. Although Attard and his colleagues were carrying out works for the Gozo Ministry, they were formally employed by the Community Work Scheme Enterprise Foundation.

A 2017 agreement between the foundation and the ministry stipulated that the ministry was responsible for compliance with occupational health and safety requirements and for providing necessary protective equipment. However, the court observed that the actual working arrangements presented a different picture.

The foundation selected and assigned workers according to their skills, provided basic health and safety training and paid their wages. The court consequently concluded that the Gozo Ministry could not be considered their employer for the purposes of the criminal responsibilities under examination.

The court assessed the individual involvement of each accused.

In Vicky Xuereb's case, the court found no evidence that she had selected the workers, issued operational instructions or supervised the renovation works. Her responsibilities were administrative, involving general coordination and financing rather than direct management of the worksite. The court also accepted her testimony that she had not been aware of the works before the fatal accident.

Regarding Joseph Cutajar, the court acknowledged that he had been more directly involved in the project. He had accompanied the architect during a site visit and was awaiting the bill of quantities before proceeding with the necessary administrative arrangements.

However, the court found no evidence that he had ordered the roof's demolition, selected the workers or assumed responsibility for supervising their activities. The judgment also noted that the architect's contractual responsibilities included acting as project manager.

The court examined Joseph Xuereb's position separately, recognising that his responsibilities brought him into closer contact with the workers. As foreman, he allocated tasks, coordinated maintenance activities and ensured that protective equipment was available. The court heard that workers had been provided with gloves, protective glasses, high-visibility vests and safety footwear.

When complaints were raised that the gloves were unsuitable for removing tiles, Xuereb arranged for additional equipment to be purchased. The court acknowledged that the protective equipment available was insufficient for roof demolition, particularly because such work required additional protection against falls and other hazards. However, it emphasised that the demolition had not been authorised and was not supposed to be carried out by that maintenance team.

It was also recognised that no demolition-specific risk assessment, method statement, health and safety plan or project supervisor had been put in place.

Nonetheless, the court therefore concluded that these omissions could not automatically be attributed to Joseph Xuereb, who had neither ordered nor authorised the demolition. The court further accepted that once he discovered what the workers had been doing, he instructed them to stop. It therefore found no basis for holding him criminally responsible for the unauthorised works.

All three cleared of criminal responsibility

In considering the remaining occupational health and safety charges, the court found that the obligations relating to demolition planning and supervision arose when the roof demolition began.

Since that work had not been authorised, and given the architect's contractual responsibilities for the project's technical planning and management, the court expressed doubts about attributing those obligations to the accused.

The existence of workplace safety shortcomings and the criminal responsibility of the particular individuals charged was also distinguished by the court and it was ultimately concluded that the evidence did not establish the necessary responsibility on the part of any of the three accused.

The court consequently acquitted Joseph Xuereb, Vicky Xuereb and Joseph Cutajar of all charges brought against them. It also rejected the prosecution's request to order the accused to pay the expenses associated with the appointment of court experts.

Defence lawyers Joe Giglio, Michaela Giglio, and Joseph Xuereb represented the accused. 

Magistrate Jean Paul Grech presided over the sitting.