Inspector files constitutional application against Police Commissioner

If I may point out please, without being too pedantic, that Dr. Etienne A. Calleja seems to do injustice to G. Sammut who never said (at least not to my mind) that "this [the right to an independent and impartial trial] was not worded in legislation". I am pretty sure that there is an "if" in G. Sammut's wording, which would mean that he is not committing oneself to the fact. Nor did he seem to imply it. G. Sammut was not, in my view, incorrect but surely brief, precise and to the point as is worthy of the case being discussed.

To begin with, Mr. Magro, it is the European Court of Human Rights not the european Court of Justice to which citizens may have recourse to if and when all the available remedies have been exhausted in their home countries. The European Court of Justice is the forum where the Commission takes action against States for a breech of EU Law, Regulation or Directive. Also I would like to remind our readers, that it was not the pre-1987 Labour Government which gave the Maltese people recourse to the ECHR but the next administration. The then Labour Government had not , and would not, ratify the 11th protocol to the ECHR, allowing petition to the ECHR and the supremacy of that court's decisions to our own.

Mr. Caruana is also incorrect, because we had these rights prior to joining the EU...long before in fact.

So if anyone has to do any reading or research it is you, more than anyone else, Mr. Magro. Lets not speak about Lino Debono who is confused to the point where it makes me wonder whether he manages to get his pants on the right way round in the morning.

Ms. Cosaltis is of course correct in her assertion. ECHR or no ECHR (whether the covention or the court) has aboslutely nothing to do with the issue in any case, and the pogrom that has developed beneath just goes to show easily we can miss the wood for the trees.

The ECHR, whether we ratified it or not, the supremacy of the European Court, are all immaterial. This is an administrative case that could have very well been heard in the ambit if the pre-independence governments, easily under the Blood Constitution, if not before. It is a technical issue the prevailing principles of which have been surmised in synthesis sufficiently by Mr. Sammut, though he is incorrect to state that this was not worded in legislation.

Dr. Etienne A. Calleja is a a former member of the Police Force and a lawyer in private practice.

Mr. Caruana is absolutely wrong in this issue. I agree with Mr Magro and others who has expressed themselves against the point raised by Mr. Caruana. When one is blind on a particular issue, his remarks fail to make any inroads.
Our friend should recognise his mistake and retract his comment.

Reply to Mr. J. Caruana below:
Fundamentalism is bad everywhere. When Maltese become fundamentalists about the EU they go off track. Calm down, Think logically. Do some research and reading. Come back and admit you are wrong.

It was in 1987 (prior to the general election), that Maltese citizens were given the right to appeal at the European Court of Justice.

The right to an independent and impartial trial is a principle of natural justice and a fundamental human right which was and is advocated for decades by the Maltese Courts of Justice even if this were not worded in any legislation.

J Caruana, I beg to differ. Citizens have these rights in virtue of the Constitution of Malta and the EU has absolutely nothing to do with the story in question.

Just to remark. It was in 1987 that the Maltese Parliament adopted the clause that the Constitutional Court of the Council Of Europe supersedes that of Maltese Courts, except when it conflicts with our Constitution.

Therefore if a person appeals to have his civil rights protected, one can look back to 1987 under a Labour Government.

Lino DeBono

Thanks to the EU that Maltese citizens now have these rights.

It is important that justice is also seen to be done. Good luck on your case, Inspector Mifsud.