Opposition against separate inquiry into police beatings claims

Noel Cutajar

Sep 6th 2008, 23:54

@ Joseph Ellis...better late than never...

Yes, I am the same person which you referred in your comments. May I also remind you that those comments were directed against the administration of the Malta Police Force. In no way I was referring to things that happen in the Police HQ. Believe me (as you do not know me), I was the first to arraign in Court Police Officers for breaching the law and found myself alone (though it felt bad but I was proud). I for one made it clear in all my minutes in all forms of correspondence that I will not tolerate any injustices within the Police...I will assure that in the future I will be proven right that the force is mismanaged but still there are people dedicated to their duty. Unfortunately, I was not a favourite officer because I was not a boot licker. As for Prosecution Unit that was a mistake from the part of the journalist as I was given NINE transfers in 4 years before I decided enough was enough and excuse the pun...jumped on the other side!!!

Joseph Ellis

May 6th 2008, 00:59

Let me assure Mr Noel Cutajar that politics did not motivate in the least my comments. I hope that one can still express one's opinion in this country without being rubber-stamped one way or another. I really feel that the criminal inquiry is not the best mechanism to scrutinize whether there were systemic failures in the manner the Police handled their investigation of Nicholas Azzopardi which led to his subsequent death.

On a personal note, I wonder whether Mr Noel Cutajar is the same Dr Noel Cutajar who formed part of the prosecution unit of the Police Corps till some months ago and who wrote on January 12th 2008 that in the Police Corps inter alia "Il-kelma hi li jew taghlaq halqek u tghid li kollox sew jew inkella tispicca imwarrab jekk titkellem." and "l-korp gharaf biss juza ghira u vendikazzjonijiet bla sens."

I suppose that if this is the same Dr Cutajar, he can regale us with first hand information of what may have taken place in Police G.H.Q. and which went so horribly wrong. He may also care to explain in a more articulate fashion why he is so dead set against the idea of having an official inquiry to sort out what really happened at Police G.H.Q., independently of the magisterial inquiry.

Gervais Marcel Cishahayo

May 6th 2008, 00:40

Dear Mr John Scerri,

I do not dispute your proposition that the appointed inquiry should carry and complete its assignment according to the defined terms of reference.
I am sure that you appreciate that I did not make make any reference to the subject matter of this exchange. The reason is that I strongly believe in two fundamental principles: One is about the respect of human life and the ensuing right of the family and the public to know the truth of the circumstances of the event. The second is the presumption of innocence of individuals and institutions involved, which dictates that all comments/ allegations that can prejudice the outcome of the inquiries and by extension of any future verdict should be avoided at all costs. There are other reasons thereto. but unfortunately I am not an authority in this field to comment any further.
Even though like other mortals, my knowledge of the legal jungle practice is very limited, I am aware that there have been instances when cases were judged through the media before and instead of a court of law! The result being that both the injured party and the public were robbed of the truth because, whether guilty or not, the accused was able to argue that their right to a fair hearing was prejudiced.
Therefore, while each person is entitled to her/his own opinion on any subject matter of public interest, we should exercise restraint and avoid comments that are tantamount to summary judgements when facts have not be established through one or more inquiries!

In all fairness, I am sure that anyone who would be accused or an injured party you would like the two and other principles to apply.

Gervais Marcel Cishahayo

Joseph Ellis

May 5th 2008, 23:54

People seem to be forgetting that the inquiry in the Bastjan Borg shooting is a magisterial one and not an official one. It is indeed quaint that anybody should be against an official inquiry on top of a magisterial inquiry as clarity is absolutely needed on all possible angles to this case. I concur with Daphne who stated in her Sunday column on TMI that Mater Dei should also institute an inquiry on the treatment given to Nicholas Azzopardi. The identity of the person who was taking "care" of him is not clear and has raised the suspicions of the family. It is also not clear why Nicholas Azzopardi was not given round the clock security at the hospital. It may well be that the terms of reference of the official inquiry should be extended to cover the treatment that Mr Azzopardi was given in hospital.

Indeed, this is the first test not only of the new administration but also of the Opposition. It is banal to reduce the matter to party politics. Instances of police abuse happen all over the world, even in advanced democracies. What matters is how governments react to such abuse. Do they cover them up, if not encourage them, as does the government in Zimbabwe or do they investigate all such instances of abuse as did the U.K. government in the Do Menendes shooting.

One has to call a spade a spade and whereas in the past, official inquiries may have been used to blunt public outcry (e.g. repatriation of Eritreans and the Safa incidents) when a magisterial inquiry was also in order, this time around, an official inquiry was also necessary, besides the magisterial one, to investigate the mysterious goings-on at Police G.H.Q. and Mater Dei which may not necessarily be criminal in nature.

If anyone still wants to interpret the events in a party political perspective, I suggest that he reads Michael Falzon's opinion piece on the Sunday Times. At least, here is a gentleman who has learnt something from the events of the seventies and the eighties but is not blinkered about what is going on today.

I would suggest that as in the Nardu Debono case, the State should consider granting the status of state witness to anyone who is prepared to spill the beans. It may well be the only way one can get to the bottom of this case. I really do hope the Opposition would support such a move, perhaps even come forward to suggest it.

Wistin Schembri

May 5th 2008, 12:52

@Conrad Shaw

You're very right. GonziPN can do nothing right.

It's such a pity that the best practice examples set by MLP (Nardu Debono's murder; torture at the Depot; Pietru Pawl Busuttil's frame up; suspension of Constitutional Court; etc) are not being followed by GonziPN.

Conrad Shaw

May 5th 2008, 09:41

A Government-appointed inquiry in all probability will take months, maybe even years to be concluded. We're all still waiting for the results of the other inquiry concerning the police murder of a psychiatrically disordered person at Qormi over a year ago. I concur with the Chamber of Advocates who also queried the reasoning behind this second inquiry. But, as usual, for the GonziPN supporters writing on this site the Government can do no wrong.

JOHN SCERRI

May 4th 2008, 11:59

Dear Gervais Marcel Cishahay
You are right in a way and I understand your point and agree with your approach of challenging results using different methods.

Kindly allow me to state that, according to my scientific knowledge, when there already exist fully validated and approved standard procedures for scientific investigations of any kind and when such investigation results lead to doubts or cannot be relied upon as being conclusive due to deviations or inconsistencies, it is only after an in depth result review that further investigations (one or more if needed) are carried out by a DIFFERENT investigating team.
In my opinion since the first investigation is still ongoing, I find no reason why a second investigation is being carried out at this stage but- yes- it might be needed later.
kind regards
John.

Gervais Marcel Cishahayo

May 4th 2008, 03:06

I fail to understand why some people should be against the fact that the government orders separate independent inquiry. My modest scientific training taught me that for an experiment to be conclusive, one had to make the measurements several times and even use different methods to confirm or infirm the hypothesis.
There can be many lies but ultimately there can be only one truth to a story. Despite the proliferation of experts in nearly every field, none is 'error-proof'. I always heard that in the world of business competition was healthy for the consumers... In the search for truth, a similar competition of two separate inquiries for the truth should not be harmful. Two, three, the more the merrier!
Gervais Marcel Cishahayo
Geophysicist

L Debono

May 3rd 2008, 22:40

I'm not certain if CCTV recording is made in the Police Buildings. If there is none of this the Police are certainly open to a lot of debate and it is about time to get up to date. It is also in the public's best interest to be able to see how the detainees are treated while in custody. This is basic human rights.

On the other side of the coin, recordings can also clear the police department from any allegations of brutality when detainees commit damage on them selves (self inflicting wounds).

The other thing that struck me is how can a detainee escape from the police HQ? It would be interesting to follow if any one is getting fired about this gross negligence and malpractice within the force?

Christina Borg

May 3rd 2008, 22:38

I am not surprised that MLP are against a public inquiry into the allegations that surfaced this week. One just has to remember how MLP in Government conducted itself when Nardu Debono was killed in the Police Headquarters.

The Magistrate’s inquiry was not about the police conduct and operations in the matter but about the alleged fall of the victim. The allegations that surfaced this week required a specific focus on police conduct and operations in this matter. So how can anyone be against such an inquiry?

Waiting for the Magistrate to finish his inquiry and starting a fresh inquiry after that would easily be interpreted that the fresh inquiry is necessary as the Magistrate did not do his work well. There are two inquiries with different focus: one is the Judicial Inquiry and the other is a Public Inquiry in view of the allegations that surfaced this week. I can only congratulate Minister Mifsud Bonnici that in his first test as Minister he opted for full transparency on very serious allegations. May this be the litmus test of his tenure as Minister of Justice and Home Affairs.

mario busuttil

May 3rd 2008, 18:29

I agree that there are two investigations.What Dr Farrugia is saying is that he doesn't agree with the minister decision,but Dr farrugia knows very well that when someone is being accused of sex abuse many times he will be beaten up not only by the police but even inside prison as he was inside the police force.We all now wait for the conclusions of the inquiry.

john fenech

May 3rd 2008, 17:59

The public, that’s you and me, red or blue should be anxious to know the truth. I am convinced and so should be any reasonable and law abiding citizen, that the magisterial and the independent inquiries are to find and present the truth and nothing but the truth so God will help every body. Why should this be a problem? Why is it that certain people have to give a particular colour to any event which occurs on these Islands? Forget personal or political agenda this event concerns the entire Nation and not an Individual person or organisation.
If all the facts are available to both magistrates then the conclusion should be the same. Was there an abuse of power or not. If the police have enough evidence, as is being suggested by several sources close to the department, than there should be no predicament to conclude this case. And the judicial system will be vindicated.

JOHN SCERRI

May 3rd 2008, 17:30

A Human Being is dead.- May he rest in peace. There are very serious assumptions and even more serious allegations about how this person may have died.
My personal opinion would have been for the first inquiry to proceed but at the same time reinforce it with more specialists thus making it work more efficiently for a speedy finalization.

Fragmented evidence which is being made public may effect the outcome of the investigations and even make it more difficult to identify any suspects.

Any evidence, however small, related to this case should not be made public until all the investigation is completed, and the media should be banned from publicizing any facts or allegations made by third parties which do not lead to a definite cause or reason for this person's death.
Case in point - Results from the autopsy , which in themselves can give the right direction to the inquiry in which way to proceed, have not been made public. This is the proper way to proceed.

My personal opinion would have been to wait for the first inquiry to proceed but at the same time enforce it with more specialists thus making it work more efficiently for a speedy finalization.

Noel Cutajar

May 3rd 2008, 17:27

The Chamber of Advocates had similar queries and no one commented. Dr Farrugia is right to ask for an explanation as this is lack of confidence over the judiciary. As to lack of resources...the judiciary have infinite powers to appoint any expertise it may deem necessary apart from arresting anyone. Would Joseph Ellis react the same way if someone queried his performance while he is still on it? Would you feel that there is no trust on what you do? So leave politics out and focus on the issue. Independent inquiry should only be appointed if the Government feel that the Judiciary did NOT do its duty according to law which was never in question. Magisterial inquiries are performed in their 1000's and no Government had ever decided to carry out another independent inquiry at the same time.

As to what has been commented to the Freedom of Information Act which was mentioned, does not exist. As to recordings, this does not apply as none of the interviews are video recorded as such equipment does not exist.

M G Buttigieg

May 3rd 2008, 17:18

The following is a comment posted by Jimmy Magro on Sunday 27th on the subject under discussion."Although I have read the statement made by Minister C Mifsud Bonnici I do not think the Government can remain silent and await the inquiry. I am quite sure that internally there were reports submitted to the Minister, as this is normal operating procedure and the people involved should be known to the authorities.
Even if the deceased escaped police custody, this still means that there are ineffective controls and those responsible have to be accountable to their superiors.
The Government must come clean about the whole affair. People are asking questions and seeking explanations."
The Minister has appointed a separate enquiry to meet these demands as this is the standard procedure!! In Malta you can never get it right!!!!!!

L Debono

May 3rd 2008, 15:45

Why all this fuss? Can't some one ask for the recordings of the interview room from CCTV equipment? Isn't this part of the freedom of information act?

Joe Vassallo

May 3rd 2008, 15:18

So Mr. Pisani does not agree that the Opposition stated its objection to two separate enquiries in respect of the same incident. The Chamber of Advocates took the same position some days ago - does Mr. Pisani object to the Chamber stating its view as well?
Mr. Pisani and many others like him, think that once Labour has lost the election it should simply shut up. Is this their idea of an open society? Do they expect people to comment only when they are in agreement with Government?

Charles.j.Schembri

May 3rd 2008, 14:47

Mark Pisani ...you look like you know nothing of law....please check your facts first then write and tell us that labour never change......

Joseph Ellis

May 3rd 2008, 14:22

I beg to differ from Dr Farrugia. The Minister of Justice did the right thing in appointing an official inquiry to look into the workings of the Police Corps in connection with this tragic incident. Actually, this was long overdue as many people are perplexed how the Minister apparently learnt about this incident from the press and how the estranged wife of the deceased happened to be in the CID quadrangle at the same time as the deceased.

These are not matters which should form the object of the criminal inquiry and the appointment of the official inquiry should not be construed as a demonstration of lack of confidence in the inquiring magistrate. In the past, government has appointed an official inquiry when a magisterial inquiry would have been opportune (e.g. the forced repatriation of Eritreans and the Safi incidents) in order to calm public opinion. This time, by choice or through circumstance, we have both a criminal and an official inquiry. It may well be this is more through circumstance than through design but one should not feel uncomfortable with having two separate and distinct inquiries about the same incidents and look forward to their outcome.

I would have expected Dr Farrugia to query whether the inquiring magistrate has got adequate resources to carry out his task efficiently. It is well known that such magistrates are under great pressure as they also have to preside district sittings and hand out sentences besides attending to other duties such as the signing of warrants. Thus, the role of an inquiring magistrate is almost a part-time occupation which hardly should be the case. Moreover, inquiring magistrates do not enjoy the right to initiate criminal investigations on their own motion as they do in other countries. It is high time that the role of the inquiring magistrate is reappraised in the light of these recent events.

Daniel Frendo

May 3rd 2008, 14:06

...........Here we go again!!! DEFINITELY some thing never change..............MLP- Past, Present & Future!!

eric saliba

May 3rd 2008, 13:40

mr mark pisani....even the chamber of advocates queried the govt decision and i am not aware that this chamber is a branch of the labour party. give over mate.

mary Pace

May 3rd 2008, 13:01

Anglu Farrugia is never satisfied with whatever the ministers do!!!I bet he would have been against &; complained,if the minister didn't do separate inquiry!!!

George Spiteri

May 3rd 2008, 12:51

Hi Mark Pisani - remove your blue blinkers for a second. Why should we now accept every single GonziPN decision?! Of course it seems highly irregular that the government appoints an independent inquiry when there is already a magisterial inquiry on the same case. What if the outcomes of both inquiries are conflicting, then what? I'll tell you what - the whole sad episode may end up being swept under the carpet.

André Xuereb

May 3rd 2008, 12:46

Unfortunately for our country, whoever dubbed the MLP the "Malta Le Party" seems to have been proven right time and time again... Will it ever change?

A Farrugia

May 3rd 2008, 12:37

Anglu will you please act responsibly and put a stop on your shenanighans. You are nothing but a failed politician as well as a failed ex police official. First the votes theatre and now this, What else have you in store? Do you think you can bluff your way with the gullible delegates?

Walter Gatt

May 3rd 2008, 12:25

Mr Mark Pisani, the opposition's duty is to question and scrutinise the work of the Government. If you think that with half a seat majority, the PN government will be given carte blanche for another 5 years, you are grossly mistaken my friend. The result of the last general election speaks for itself.

Mark Pisani

May 3rd 2008, 11:38

Thank goodness Evarist Bartolo said that Labour should stop being so negative and that they should stop rejecting any proposal made by PN a priori - so far all we have read in the papers is - Labour against this, opposition against that...

well, I guess some things will never change