Police vs Galea — Disputed Drainage Works Lead to Acquittal

Criminal spoliation charges against a flat owner failed when expert evidence showed the prosecution could not meet the required standard of proof.

Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature · Magistrate Dr. Yana Micallef Stafrace LL.D. · 05 May 2026

Elaine Karen Galea, a resident of St. John Flats, 21st September Avenue, Naxxar, was charged with two criminal offences arising from events in November and December 2022. The prosecution alleged she had unlawfully compelled her neighbour Joseph Xuereb to fulfil an obligation or had interfered with his possession of his property, and that she had committed a violation of the property of Catherine and Joseph Xuereb. The charges stemmed from a long-running dispute over drainage pipes and related works carried out at the residential block where both parties lived. The background involved competing claims over a courtyard and airspace. Joseph Xuereb, representing his mother Catherine Xuereb, alleged that the Galea family — Elaine and her husband Kenneth — had connected new drainage pipes and possibly installed geezers and flushings that discharged into the airspace above the Xuereb courtyard. The dispute was set against a broader civil litigation, including a failed attempt by the Xuereb family to obtain an inhibitory warrant in 2021, which the Civil Court had refused. The court heard from several witnesses, including a Planning Authority representative who confirmed a 2014 permit for roof structure works at the Galea flat, and court-appointed expert Dr. Robert Musumeci, a perit (architect/engineer). Dr. Musumeci's detailed report examined the five legal elements required to establish criminal spoliation under Article 85 of the Criminal Code. He found that while some drainage pipe connections were undisputed, no tangible evidence was produced to show the drainage system was overflowing or that water pressure had diminished. Critically, Kenneth Galea — Elaine's husband — had testified under oath that after the inhibitory warrant was lost, he believed the works were again authorised, suggesting the required mental element of knowingly acting with self-assumed authority was absent. Magistrate Dr. Yana Micallef Stafrace concluded that the evidence produced did not reach the threshold required by criminal law. She also took note that under the Civil Code, the owner of the lower part of a building is legally obliged to permit the owner of the upper part to install drainage connections to the public system. On this basis, all charges against Elaine Karen Galea were found not proven, and she was acquitted and discharged from all liability.

Elaine Karen Galea was found not guilty on all charges brought against her. She was acquitted and discharged from all criminal liability. No fines, prison terms, or orders were imposed.

• Under Maltese criminal law, spoliation (raġun fattasi) requires five cumulative elements to be proven, including an external act of dispossession, prior controversy between the parties, and the accused's awareness that they were acting with self-assumed rather than lawful authority — the absence of any one element is fatal to the charge.
• The Civil Code (Chapter 16, Article 323) and the Police Code (Chapter 10, Article 104) create a legal obligation on the owner of the lower part of a building to allow the upper-floor owner to install drainage pipes connected to the public drainage system, which can limit what counts as unlawful interference with property.
• A failed inhibitory warrant in civil proceedings can have indirect consequences in related criminal cases: if a defendant reasonably believed that the failure of the warrant meant the works were no longer prohibited, this may negate the mental element required for criminal spoliation.
• Maltese criminal courts require proof beyond the civil standard; in property disputes with concurrent civil litigation, prosecutors must produce specific tangible evidence of harm — such as a blocked or overloaded drainage system — rather than relying solely on the complainant's assertions.
• When a co-accused spouse does not testify and the acts complained of were physically carried out by the other spouse, the prosecution must establish individual criminal liability; shared ownership of property is not sufficient on its own to attribute criminal responsibility.

Criminal Code Ch. 9 — Arts. 85(1), 340(d), 377(3) (spoliation, property violation); Civil Code Ch. 16 — Art. 323; Police Code Ch. 10 — Art. 104

Report an error or outdated information