Human rights are rather strange when they visit Malta. We sign one convention after another, endorse one proclamation after another, then we do everything, as Frank Sinatra used to sing, "my way". One recent change to our criminal law was the introduction of the arrest warrant signed by a magistrate. Certainly this was introduced as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest by the police.

The power of arrest is now circumscribed. At least there should be someone who is independent and impartial, and who can control whether the arrest is being executed in a vexatious or unreasonable manner. This is also a safeguard in favour of the police. But one thing should be clear: this protective provision is available and meant to cover the initial arrest. It does not cover all future proceedings.

At the same time, there was another amendment. When an arrested person is brought before a Magistrate's court, the police have to justify their arrest. It is an examination by a judicial officer who has to examine again. I am afraid that we are doing it our way. The procedure of justifying the arrest before the Courts of Magistrates is already forgotten.

In a recent case, when I raised the matter that the records did not show that this procedure had been followed, Magistrate Dr Tonio Micallef Trigona did not think twice to consider that the continued arrest was not legal, as the protective provision had not been observed, and there was no examination whether the arrest was lawful or not.

Yet again, and a few days ago, this examination was forgotten when I called attention to this breach. At that moment, Police Superintendent Pierre Calleja, an able and dedicated Police officer, who fights clean and argues out of conviction, agreed that it had been forgotten and should be immediately remedied. Going into the witness box, he said the arrest had been authorised by a magistrate.

Now we were before a court, and a different magistrate. On my objection that the procedure could not rely on the warrant of the first magistrate, the Court said that the arrest warrant signed by the magistrate was a guarantee against abusive arrests. That is fair enough.

What was being missed was that the European Convention on Human Rights orders that a person who is arrested must be brought before a court or other judicial office, and that an arrested person is given the opportunity to be heard. In the case of the warrant there is no such hearing. The magistrate controls the police on what they unilaterally submit to him.

In the second case, the arrested person has the right to be assisted by a lawyer, and the magistrate has to balance the reasons why the person is to be detained or released. These are the guidelines of the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court. The Convention does not presume that the arrest remains legal, once it has been authorised by a magistrate. As even magistrate or judges may err in their decisions about personal liberty.

One famous case is the Cremona case. The individual was arrested by an order of a judge. A magistrate examined the case, and released the individual, overruling the judge.

Examining a person charged is not simply asking him his name, surname, job, father's name, and whether his father is still alive. It is not enough that the police confirm on oath their charges. That has been discarded by the European Court in the Aquilina case. What if a person is acquitted? The initial oath of the police officer would be false swearing.

I plead that we stop playing around with such matters. A guilty person has to succumb to the rule of law, but he must have his full guarantees at all times. We cannot interpret human rights provision "my way" according to the whims and fancies of every individual magistrate. In Italy, for example, although the police arrest on a warrant from a magistrate, the arrested person has now to be brought before what they call the GIP who sits in a court, and may overrule the magistrate who signed the warrant. The second magistrate has the benefit of hearing both sides, and such a hearing should not be a mere formality.

Strange but true.

Much ado...

Last week I spent a whole day in the boardroom of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. There was the usual meeting on Thursday morning, followed by a public hearing in the afternoon on the proposed golf course. More than four hours of submissions, expositions, resumes, argument and invective. The outcome is known. But what efforts have been wasted!

MEPA cannot enter into the title of ownership of the applicant. That is fair enough. But how can one entertain an application when the owner states that the application refers to government land? Is the government bound to concede property because one had a bright idea, acceptable to MEPA? Transfer of government land is regulated by law, and is not presumed.

I beg to be spared spending long hours to debate what can possibly be an academic exercise. As things are, so much wasted effort to find out whether an application should be approved or not. Whether it will become a reality may be a chimera. By the way, I have applied to turn Palace Square into a cafeteria.