Lm50,000 order against police commissioner

A Civil Court judge yesterday ordered the police commissioner to pay for Lm50,000 worth of electronic equipment seized in a raid in 1995 and classified as a total loss when returned to its owner in 1999.

Mr Justice Ray Pace ruled that the police commissioner had failed to take adequate precautions to safeguard Martin Cachia's property.

Cachia filed a writ in the Civil Court in April 2000. He argued that on September 3, 1995, the police had carried out a search on his property, and had seized a number of machines and other equipment belonging to him.

In January 1997, he was arraigned in court on charges of commercial fraud and breach of copyright, but was acquitted of all charges on March 5, 1999.

No appeal was filed from the judgment.

The Magistrates' Court had, in a subsequent ruling, ordered the police commissioner to release Cachia's property but it resulted that the equipment had been badly stored and consequently could not be utilised.

Thus, its commercial value had considerably diminished.

Cachia had concluded his writ by requesting the Civil Court to declare that defendant had failed to take the necessary precautions to safeguard the seized property.

The court was also requested to order the police commissioner to make good the damages sustained.

The police commissioner pleaded that he ought not to have been sued, for the items had for many years been exhibited in the judicial proceedings under the authority of the courts.

He further pleaded that he was not liable in damages, and that Cachia had failed to produce any evidence that the items were in good condition when they had been seized.

In its judgment the court noted that the items had been seized by the police from a garage leased by Cachia at Mriehel.

Cachia claimed that all the items that had deteriorated had been in good condition when they were seized by the police.

The items seized consisted primarily of electronic equipment, and Cachia submitted that he had insisted with the police that the items ought to be released or be properly maintained.

Mr Justice Pace noted that the court-appointed technical expert had concluded that the equipment, when released to Cachia, was classified as a total loss and of no recovery value.

Although Cachia did not produce any receipts to show the value of the machinery at the time of purchase, he had produced witnesses who testified under oath that he had purchased the equipment from them, and explained the purchase price.

The witnesses told the court that Cachia had purchased the equipment for Lm53,900.

Evidence was produced to show that Cachia had sold some items prior to the seizure, and the court noted that the total value of the equipment at the time of the police seizure was estimated at Lm45,991.

The court dismissed the police commissioner's plea that he ought not to have been sued.

Mr Justice Pace pointed out that there was no doubt that the items seized had been in defendant's actual physical possession all throughout the criminal proceedings filed against Cachia.

The court also declared that it was satisfied that the items were of no value when Cachia was authorised to resume possession, while Cachia had produced evidence to show how much he had paid for them.

Mr Justice Pace concluded that the police commissioner had failed to take care of the items seized and retained in his possession, and that he had failed to return them to Cachia in the same condition as when they had been seized.

In liquidating the damages, the court took into consideration the value of the items, in the sum of Lm45,991, and the loss of profits sustained by Cachia, which sum amounted to a further Lm4,000.

The commissioner was ordered to pay Cachia Lm49,991 in damages.

Dr José Herrera and Dr Joseph Giglio were counsel to Cachia.

Dr Franco Bondin was counsel to the police commissioner.