A man who discharged pepper spray inside a crowded Paceville nightclub more than a decade ago has been given a suspended prison sentence after the Court of Appeal reversed his earlier acquittal.

Madam Justice Edwina Grima found Zach Latif criminally responsible for his actions at the Plus One nightclub in November 2015, when the release of pepper spray triggered panic among clubgoers and a rush towards the exits.

The resulting crush left numerous people injured, including minors, as those inside attempted to escape the premises.

Although the court concluded that Latif's actions had set the incident in motion, it also identified substantial shortcomings in the nightclub's management and emergency arrangements, which aggravated the consequences.

Latif was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for two years, fined €800 and ordered to contribute towards the expenses incurred by court-appointed experts.

Appeal centres on statement given to police

Latif had originally been acquitted by the Magistrates' Court of charges arising from the incident.

These included negligently causing grievous bodily harm to several individuals, unlawfully carrying a weapon in an entertainment establishment, public order offences and possession of pepper spray.

The Attorney General subsequently challenged the acquittal, arguing that the first court had failed to give proper consideration to a statement Latif made in 2015.

The statement had been recorded under oath in the presence of a legal aid lawyer.

In her judgment, Madam Justice Grima determined that the statement was legally admissible and could be relied upon when assessing the evidence.

During that statement, Latif acknowledged obtaining a 40ml canister of pepper spray from an Italian man for €30.

He also admitted using it during an altercation inside the nightclub, explaining that he had directed the spray towards the ground while attempting to protect a friend.

The Court of Appeal considered those admissions significant in establishing his involvement.

Self-defence argument rejected

The defence had sought to justify Latif's conduct on the basis that he was intervening to assist someone else during a confrontation.

However, the appellate court was not persuaded that the circumstances warranted the use of pepper spray.

Madam Justice Grima concluded that releasing a chemical irritant inside an enclosed venue filled with people created an obvious and serious risk.

The judge considered the response excessive when measured against the situation Latif claimed to have been facing.

Rather than treating his intervention as a legitimate act of protection, the court found that his decision to deploy the spray was reckless and contributed directly to the panic that followed.

The incident occurred at approximately 1am, when the nightclub was heavily occupied.

As people struggled to leave, the sudden movement of the crowd placed enormous pressure on the building's exit routes.

A handrail along a staircase gave way during the evacuation, while several people were knocked down and trampled.

Club operating beyond safe capacity

While establishing Latif's responsibility, the court also examined the conditions inside Plus One on the night of the incident.

Evidence presented during the proceedings indicated that the premises were accommodating substantially more people than they could safely hold.

Court-appointed experts calculated that the nightclub's main floor had a safe occupancy limit of approximately 200 people.

However, the number of patrons present that night exceeded that figure considerably.

The evidence also revealed that management did not have a reliable system for monitoring attendance.

Instead, crowd numbers were estimated visually, without accurate checks to ensure that capacity limits were respected.

The court considered this overcrowding an important factor in explaining why the situation deteriorated so quickly once panic spread.

Emergency exits and security arrangements criticised

The judgment also highlighted deficiencies in the nightclub's emergency infrastructure.

Some emergency doors were secured with keys, while others were not accompanied by adequately illuminated exit signs.

Certain routes led into adjoining entertainment establishments, including Havana 808 and Hugo Passion, rather than providing a direct passage outdoors.

These arrangements raised serious concerns about the ability of patrons to evacuate safely in an emergency.

The court also heard evidence about practices involving underage customers.

Witnesses described how minors were regularly admitted to the premises and permitted to consume alcohol without proper identity checks.

Questions were also raised about the preparedness of security personnel and other employees to respond to an emergency.

According to the evidence, staff had not received appropriate training in evacuation procedures or crowd management.

When the pepper spray caused panic, the nightclub's music continued playing, the lighting remained off and employees did not provide effective assistance to those trying to escape.

The court considered these failures to have intensified an already dangerous situation.

Safety failures considered in sentencing

Madam Justice Grima distinguished between the act that initially caused the disturbance and the circumstances that allowed it to develop into a serious incident involving multiple injuries.

Although Latif's decision to use pepper spray was found to have triggered the sequence of events, the judge concluded that the nightclub's inadequate safety arrangements had materially worsened the outcome.

The combination of excessive crowd numbers, unsuitable emergency exits and insufficiently trained personnel left patrons particularly vulnerable once panic broke out.

These contributing factors were taken into account when the court determined the appropriate punishment.

The appeal therefore resulted in Latif's acquittal being overturned and a sentence of one year's imprisonment, suspended for two years.

He was also ordered to pay an €800 fine and part of the court experts' expenses.

The prosecution was conducted by lawyers Miriayah Borg and Justine Brincat from the Office of the Attorney General.