Court overturns damages ruling against police commissioner

The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned a judgment by which the Police Commissioner had been ordered to pay almost Lm50,000 in damages.

The case started in 2000 when Martin Cachia filed a writ in the First Hall of the Civil Court against the commissioner.

Mr Cachia told the court that in January 1997 he had been arraigned in court on charges of commercial fraud and breach of copyright. He was acquitted of all charges.

The police had carried out a search of Mr Cachia's property and had seized a large number of blank video cassettes and machinery connected with recordings of audio cassettes. The items seized were then stored in a warehouse at the police headquarters.

After his acquittal, in March 1999, Mr Cachia requested the return of the items seized and in April 2000 he filed a writ for damages against the commissioner on the basis that the latter had not ensured that the items seized were properly stored. The First Hall of the Civil Court later found the commissioner answerable for the damages sustained by Mr Cachia and ordered the commissioner to pay Lm49, 991 in damages.

The Police Commissioner appealed to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A Filletti.

The commissioner submitted that he ought not to have been sued as the items that had been seized had been exhibited in court in the course of the proceedings against Mr Cachia. Thus the courts were responsible for their preservation.

This submission was upheld by the court of appeal. The court heard that the items seized had been formally exhibited in court by the officers conducting the prosecution against Mr Cachia. Although exhibited, the items were kept stored in the police warehouse. As a result, the commissioner was only responsible for the items seized up till the time that they were formally exhibited in court, as from that moment the items passed into the custody of the courts.

The court added that Mr Cachia had filed his case only against the commissioner and had not involved the Registrar of Courts. It upheld the commissioner's appeal and revoked the judgment of the first court.