False declarations in the planning application process can lead to serious legal problems, including criminal charges (apart from the potential loss of the permit by virtue of Article 80 of the Development Planning Act if revocation procedures are initiated within 5 years from the date of the issuance of the permit)
Yet, two important ideas help determine whether a false statement should lead to criminal charges: materiality and criminal intent.
Materiality means whether the false statement is significant enough to influence a decision. In other words, not every mistake or false claim will lead to criminal charges. Typically, only statements that can affect the outcome of a decision, like approving the building permit, are considered material. This ensures that only important false statements are treated as crimes, protecting the legal process from being overwhelmed by minor errors.
Meanwhile, criminal intent, or mens rea, looks at whether the person who made the false statement did so on purpose. It asks if he or she knew the statement was false and intended to deceive others for some benefit.
Consequently, if someone applying for a building permit falsely claims he owns a property when he is still on a konvenju, the significance of this ‘lie’ depends on ‘how’ it relates to the permit decision. At least, this is the line of reasoning taken by the court of criminal appeal in Police vs. omissis decided way back in October 2016. In this case, omissis was accused of making false statements in a development applications by claiming he was the sole owner of a property when he was not. According to Malta’s laws, such a false declaration could be a crime if it is misleading or incorrect in an important way. To this end, the relevant articles are Article 188 of the Criminal Code and Article 103 of the Development Planning Act.
Article 188 of the Criminal Code states:
‘188. (1) Whosoever, in order to gain any advantage or benefit for himself or others, shall, in any document intended for any public authority, knowingly make a false declaration or statement, or give false information, shall, on conviction, be liable to the punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine (multa):
Provided that nothing in this article shall affect the applicability of any other law providing for a higher punishment.
(2) Where the document referred to in sub-article (1) is not one intended for any public authority the punishment shall be that of imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine (multa)’
Article 103 of the Development Planning Act states:
Having said this, the Court of Criminal Appeal decided that Omissis’ false statement was not significant enough to warrant criminal charges.
The court explained that the outcome of the planning authority’s decision doesn’t rely only on the applicant’s word while reminding that the system’s built-in safeguards, like needing proof of consent and allowing objections, meant that the false statement did not meet the level of importance required for criminal punishment envisaged in Article 103 of the Development Planning Act. More so, there was not enough evidence in this case to show that omissis intended to deceive or gain an advantage through his false declaration as required by Article 188 of the Criminal Code.
In summary, materiality and criminal intent are crucial in determining whether a false declaration in a planning application should lead to criminal charges. By ensuring that only significant and intentional false statements result in criminal liability, the court in this case has prevented an individual from facing unnecessary punishment for a minor or unintentional mistake.
In this blog, I use “omissis” to protect the identity of the accused, even though they were found not guilty.
