Conditional discharge for neighbours who harassed businesses over alleged illegalities

Two men trying to collect evidence of illegalities by commercial establishments next door to their homes have had their conviction for harassment confirmed on appeal.

Alfred Coppola and Frederick Attard had been conditionally discharged by the Court of Magistrates in 2017 after they were charged with harassment, following criminal complaints from three owners of businesses who used properties adjacent to the accused’s home for their commercial purposes.

Coppola and Attard had started taking photographs of the businessmen and their customers, posting pictures of them on social media and filing a number of police reports alleging illegalities.

The police had followed up the complaints, finding no evidence of the alleged contraventions at the establishments, one a panel beater’s garage, the other a catering wholesaler.

Despite this, the neighbours carried on with their antics, which led to them eventually being charged with harassment of the owners of the commercial establishments. The latter claimed that the accused’s behaviour was causing disruption to their work and was scaring customers away.

For their part, Coppola and Attard claimed that one of the neighbours had been verbally abusive and threatened to run them over.

The men were convicted of harassment and filed an appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, with Madam Justice Edwina Grima presiding, upheld the decision reached by the first court. She observed that the men should never have taken upon themselves the role of private investigators and should have stopped after reporting the issue to the police.

The posting of photos on social media had clearly been intended to harass the neighbours whose presence, noted the court, had pre-dated that of the appellants. Additionally, the appellants actions constituted an invasion of privacy.

By repeatedly performing the actions, they had overstepped the boundaries of legitimately safeguarding their rights as citizens and of disclosing an offence or preventing it from happening, the Court said.

The appellants’ behaviour was intended to annoy the parte civile so much that they would close down their businesses, said the court, confirming the conviction as well as the punishment: a three-year conditional discharge. Lawyer Joseph Giglio appeared parte civile.