Safety barriers were for airport’s use, not to protect spectators

Crash barriers at the 2015 Paqpaqli Għall-Istrina event, in which 23 people were injured after a supercar careened into the crowd, were placed to protect MIA property and not to protect people at the event, a court heard yesterday.

Also, the police and the Civil Protection Department never met with the head of security at Malta International Airport ( MIA) to discuss risk or compile a risk assessment report for the 2015 Paqpaqli Għall-Istrina event.

Twenty-three people were injured, some seriously, when a supercar careened into a crowd of spectators in October 2015 during the annual event to raise funds for the Malta Community Chest Fund, which falls under the responsibility of the Office of the President.

The Porsche 918 Spyder was being driven by British millionaire Paul Bailey.

Bailey, together with the organisational committee stand accused of involuntarily causing grievous bodily harm, as well causing damage to various motor vehicles, through imprudence, carelessness and non-observance of regulations.

Several MIA representatives took the witness stand to describe how their role was limited to the needs of the airport, ensuring that no damage was carried out on MIA property, and that the airport’s activities are in no way disrupted. The head of operations for the airport explained that the safety officers on sight on the day of the incident were there in terms of aviation security and not on behalf of the event, and that

the airport did not communicate with CPD or police for safety features, as in his view this had to be carried out by the organisers.

Head of security at MIA Patrick Murgo testified that it was up to the organisational committee to procure insurance, under the auspices of the President, but he had no recollection of whether insurance had been taken out and did not remember receiving a copy of the insurance policy.

Murgo also told the court how his meetings with the organisational committee, or police or CPD, had been limited to the safety and security of airport and passengers.

He described how the crash-barriers used in the event were intended to avoid damage to any nearby aircraft and cordon off the operational runway at the MIA.

Two types of barriers were used; concrete ones to protect nearby aircraft, and water-filled barriers to cordon off the public from restricted areas.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti, on behalf of the accused, questioned whether the event organisers discussed high-speed trials with the witness, in view of the supercar’s capabilities.

Murgo explained that the second runway had been conceded for the event in order to keep the public as far away as possible from the supercar. He also told the court how it was the organisational committee that had chosen water-filled bollards so that they could be quickly removed should the site be needed by the MIA.

Murgo added that had MIA’s primary runway been compromised for an unrelated issue, it would have been up to him to ensure that the second runway being used for the event could be quickly cleared and used by the MIA itself.

He told Magistrate Bugeja that it was up to MIA to ensure the water-filled bollards were placed correctly, but that they had asked the committee to provide them and fill them with water.

“The barriers were there to ensure the security of the airport. Concrete barriers were to protect a group of impounded aircraft and the water bollards for the area of aviation operations,” Murgo told the court.

Police involvement together with MIA security was limited to patrolling the area to ensure that the public did not enter restricted zones, taking care of funds collected and as a precaution should any disturbance take place.

Murgo could not recall whether high-speed trials had been carried out prior to the event, despite an agreement to do so.

Murgo also told the court that the responsibility of the event became limited to ensuring that MIA property was protected as the management of the temporarily public area does not remain the airport’s responsibility. A Government Gazette notice was issued to say that on the day of the event, the site would no longer be restricted and accessible to the public.

He added that the audience should have been at least 100 metres away from the highspeed area.

Inspector Louise Calleja confirmed, via her testimony, that Assistant Police Commissioner Sandro Zarb had been present for the final organisational committee meeting before the event took place. Repeatedly asked who was there to represent the police force, whether it was her or Zarb, Calleja stopped short of answering, saying she was replacing Magro in his capacity as MIA police, and declared that she could not say in what capacity Zarb had attended.

Zarb had earlier taken the witness stand, where he confirmed that a continuous, informal working relationship had been maintained between the police, the CPD and an aviation safety organisation by the name of OMAS. He confirmed that at the event, four police officers were stationed: one to direct traffic flow, one to direct access, one to protect the money and another patrolling. When asked whether any police had been stationed for safety and security purposes for the audience, he said that police stationed at MIA were present.

He confirmed that no risk assessment had been carried out on behalf of the police for the event.

The defendants of the case, aside from Paul Bailey, are TV presenter Tonio Darmanin; Angelo Mario Mannara, 51, from Birżebbuġa; Christopher Sultana, 41, from Lija; David Bugeja ,38, from San Ġwann; Brian Gatt, 44, from Naxxar; Jonathan Tonna, 40, from Naxxar; Kevin Perry, 44, from Qormi; Melvin Haber, 44, from Naxxar; Ian Keith Cilia Pisani, 38, from Mġarr; Jonathan Bruno, 41, from Mosta; Tonio Cini, 47, from Naxxar, and; Agostino De Giorgio, 52, from Sliema. The 12 men all form part of the organisational committee.

A magisterial inquiry launched after the incident found that the accident had been caused by Bailey when he lost control of the vehicle. Mechanical failure was ruled out. The inquiry also pointed its finger towards the organisational committee, insisting that the security measures in place were not enough in the circumstances. Therefore, the committee, which fell under the Office of the President, would have to shoulder responsibility on “secondary causes.” The magisterial inquiry exonerated President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, who was not involved in the organisation.