‘Someone finally agreed with us’: Matthew Bartolo’s family on latest twist in involuntary homicide case

After 11 years in court, the family of 17-year-old Matthew Bartolo, who died in a workplace accident in 2015, could not believe it when their lawyer informed them that Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera had ordered the involuntary homicide case to be reheard.

The family has been fighting for justice ever since Bartolo was killed in a tragic accident that shook the nation more than a decade ago. Until last February, it appeared the case would end in a win for the owners of Construct Furniture, the company that employed Bartolo.

Judge Scerri Herrera’s decision now means that they get another shot at finally getting justice for their son.

Claudette Bartolo, Matthew’s mother, told The Shift, “It was like all the thoughts we had about this case suddenly became a judgment. At least, we now feel like someone has finally agreed with us.”

In February, The Shift had reported how Matthew’s former employers, Construct Furniture, appeared all set to beat the prosecution’s involuntary homicide case.

The first court had issued a scathing judgment slamming the police force, the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), and the Attorney General’s office for failing to carry out a proper investigation into Matthew’s death.

In that first judgment, Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit had concluded that, despite the significant amount of evidence against the accused (Construct Furniture shareholder and director John Agius, company foreman James Cefai, and employee training manager Amanda Cefai), the inadequate investigation meant that the court could only find Agius guilty of failing to adequately assess health and safety risks in the workplace.

On 21 April, Judge Scerri Herrera, who was tasked with hearing the family’s appeal against the first court’s ruling, abruptly issued a radically different judgment a month ahead of schedule, ruling that if Agius was found guilty of failing to adequately assess risks, then he should have also been declared guilty for the involuntary homicide of Matthew Bartolo.

Bartolo’s mother told The Shift: “In truth, at first we were shocked. We weren’t expecting this, obviously. On the other hand, we are at least satisfied that it worked in our favour this time around. We had also disagreed with the first court. For us, it is satisfying to know that the Judge concluded that the sentence wasn’t just.”

“Agius was previously only found guilty on one charge – that just didn’t sit right with us… It wasn’t right that all he was going to pay was just a €7,000 fine and that they hadn’t found the other two accused guilty, either,” she added.

In its appeal, the prosecution argued that a small, protective gate surrounding the machine that claimed Matthew’s life was not, contrary to what the first court concluded, an indication of Construct Furniture’s safety discipline.

The judgment concludes that it was actually a sign of Agius’ awareness that the woodworking machine was “dangerous”.

“…Without even entering into the merits of whether this gate was useful or not, which it evidently wasn’t since it was barely 90cm high and clearly did not stop this tragedy from happening, it is being noted that Agius did so because he knew that it was not safe for use at all,” the judgment states.

“Therefore, the appellant cannot agree with the (first) court’s conclusion that this gate was an indication that Agius was serious about his work, because if that were the case, he would not have authorised the use of this machine and, even more so, would not have been prone to accepting that a young, ‘energetic’ man would be allowed to use it,” the ruling adds.

Judge Scerri Herrera agreed that all three company representatives should have been found guilty of failing to ensure the health and safety of all those who could have been affected by their workplace activities, failing to accurately assess danger and keeping detailed reports about how that danger was being mitigated, and failing to adequately inform their employees about how to safely use dangerous equipment.

Using the same reasoning applied to the involuntary homicide charge, Judge Scerri Herrera disagreed with the idea that the company’s foreman and the manager responsible for training employees could be exonerated when it was evidently their responsibility to make sure such incidents did not occur.

“James Cefai knew that Matthew Bartolo was a minor and that he was not supposed to be using this machine, the same machine that led to his tragic death,” the judgment notes.

The court also noted that Matthew’s work backpack contained a document listing pre-programmed instructions for operating the machines, a document that family members had testified they saw and heard Matthew complain about.

Bartolo’s mother also distinctly recalls that Matthew’s employment contract referred to him being employed as a ‘helper’, and not a technician.

“This document clearly shows that it is not a document which would be carried out by a ‘helper’, but would be carried by someone who is operating the machines,” the ruling adds, noting that this shows that both Amanda and James Cefai should have ensured that Matthew was not allowed to operate the machines.

Bartolo’s mother repeated what has become a practised refrain, noting that all she wanted was for Matthew’s case “to be heard fairly, without any two-faced politics involved”.

“This is a wound that will never close, but every time we have to go to court, it’s just another painful day for us. People’s comments on our story show that everyone understands what I’m saying. Everyone asks how our case could have even been allowed to happen,” she added.