When justice gets rough

Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici is prepared to get to the bottom of the latest allegations against the police and to create a better justice system. He spoke to Steve Mallia.

What do you know about the incident that allegedly took place last Saturday involving the police in Paceville?

I'm aware that it happened and that the police are investigating it. I don't have any direct contact with the people concerned and therefore don't know precisely what happened.

What was the Police Commissioner's initial reaction?

He wasn't happy about the incident. But he said he'd take stock of the situation and proceed immediately...

Do you believe there are any circumstances that justify a policeman beating a potential suspect?

No. The use of force should be limited to resisting force used against them. Police should not beat anyone, especially if they have already managed to arrest that person.

Your spokesman said that your ministry will not tolerate irresponsible behaviour by the police force. What's irresponsible behaviour?

Behaviour that runs contrary to conduct that is expected from each and every member of the police force. A policeman is there because society has placed him there to maintain law and order. He has to live up to the responsibility he has, this privilege given to him by society. A lot of them do.

But it appears there are certain policemen that are not doing this.

Correct. It's therefore important that people tell us about these cases so those that aren't fit to be in the police force are no longer in it.

What can you do to address abuse of power by policemen?

We need to take a look at training. We need to look at their formation and also at how existing policemen can better deal with today's circumstances. The scenario has changed so much in the past 20 years that policemen need to be up to date.

So what you're saying is that the training is inadequate.

It is not as good as I want it to be. I want it to be better and have started a process to make this happen.

This government has been in power for 20 years. Why wasn't this done before?

Previous administrations built up the police academy. But... what's being taught at the police academy needs to be updated... We have around 2,000 policemen. It's important that we have a structure whereby the good ones progress, those in the middle come good, and those who are bad take an alternative route.

What sanctions do you propose to take against people that do this sort of thing.

My message clear: I am not prepared to allow (any officer) to tarnish the image of the police force. That element needs to be removed. I have every faith in the police force. The majority are good people...

...but the reality is that you can't do anything about it.

The reality is that I can give direction. You have to build a foundation so that today or tomorrow things will turn out how you want them.

We've had these kinds of incident before, and still they keep happening. So what makes you think that you'll succeed?

I need to take a closer look at it, to see if the mechanism of control we have today is good or not...

At the moment they're not adequate. That's clear.

We'd be making a mistake to apply that to the entire police force. A good 95 per cent are decent. But there's that five per cent that need definitely need to be addressed.

Why were these men with humanitarian status put through court proceedings and sentenced before the full facts of the case were known?

From what I can understand, they admitted to the charges when they were in court. This is part of my dilemma: They were beaten - alleged that they were beaten - and didn't say anything about this in court. This bothered me a bit, but I will also get into that.

When you're saying it bothered you, in what sense?

Because it shows that maybe the judicial system didn't work the way we want it to work. These things should be drawn to the attention of the court. I remember other times where, if someone was (claiming to be) assaulted, one would ask the court to appoint someone to examine the person concerned. I have even more reason to be concerned if this didn't happen.

Who would be to blame for this?

I would like to see what actually happened in those proceedings: to whether the court's attention was drawn to this, whether the lawyer's attention was drawn to it, or not. It could be that this person did not tell the lawyer about it, and that no one knew until more information became available after the event. It could also be that the accused did not feel he had the freedom to make such a claim. It could be a question of culture; that a person doesn't feel he can speak once he is being processed by the authorities.

Although they themselves didn't say anything, there were a number of witnesses who told the police they had seen something. Yet the police still went ahead with the prosecution and did not take these things into account. That's unacceptable, isn't it?

It is not how one would like things to be. But bear in mind that when an accused pleads guilty, the court proceeds with sentencing without hearing evidence.

But in this case the process shouldn't have gone ahead at that stage, especially when the police were still hearing from witnesses.

With hindsight, yes. But I don't know if the court knew of these witnesses or if the defence knew of them.

But the police knew.

The police could have known. I have to see if the police investigating officer knew of these things...

What do you think should happen to these people's sentences if it turns out that they were beaten? Would you propose anything be done?

I am not clear what should or should not happen at this moment in time. But we would consider this.

And would you consider instituting procedures to ensure that someone can't be tried so quickly when there might be circumstances that haven't yet come to light?

It's difficult to draw a fine line, since we moan about the number of pending cases at the courts. In this particular case, the court acted fast...

...it's ironic isn't it?

It's ironic. What's certain is that one has to take great care where to draw the line. One of the biggest complaints from people is that cases take a long time to be heard.

But if you're a foreigner your case is going to be heard immediately even if it means you don't get justice.

Not always. This case was heard quickly. But there are other cases involving foreigners who are still awaiting trial.

Do you think the police are racist?

No. They are not racist. We could have elements. With reference to this case, I don't have any evidence to suggest either that the man was beaten on racial grounds or on the basis of a 'reaction'. It appears that there was an amount of resistance in this case from what one reads in the papers, and that the police displayed an anger that they should not have displayed. But I don't believe there is prevalent racism in the police force.

It wasn't just the people allegedly committing crimes that were arrested in this case, but also a woman who was protesting to police because she complained they'd been beaten...

It's wrong for the police - if a person goes up to them with information - to act in this way and say it's none of your business. The police have a duty to collect evidence for the prosecution and for the defence. So if there is proof that provides mitigation or changes the scenario, the police have the duty to take that into consideration.

They shouldn't arrest someone, surely.

They shouldn't arrest, and they shouldn't even use the question 'who are you?' as a form of threat for that person not to speak out because something may happen to them. The police cannot transmit that message.

Can you do something about a situation where someone goes to speak to a policeman and they ask for particulars or threaten to arrest?

It's a process of changing mentality. The majority of police don't act in that way and I'm pleased to say that a lot of policemen solve crime through the professional and educated way they operate... Unfortunately, this case has happened. But I don't want it to be seen as the rule. It's the exception.

There is an inquiry going on into this case. As of last week, there were 2,069 (magisterial inquiries) that are still pending. You said the situation is untenable. What can you do about it?

What we're trying to do - and I hope we succeed - is to have a major overhaul of the system we have today. We need to move towards systems used abroad where the process is more open, and take a look at the kind of people being appointed as court experts. I'm being told that a number of delays are due to the experts.

Should magistrates be leading these inquiries?

That's another interesting point and one of the things we're going to consider. Should it be an experienced lawyer, should it be...

So you're considering taking that function away from magistrates?

No, delegating it and integrating it... I am always looking to see how I can best use the abilities of the magistrates we have - taking into account their character, the challenges they have, to ensure there is a system where there aren't the delays that exist today.

Most of them are failing miserably.

No. Some of them are. Others aren't. I need to establish two things: if the problem is with the system or with particular individuals.

What action can you take against the magistrates that are failing miserably?

I cannot take any action. I don't have that power and shouldn't have that power. Any action needs to be channelled through the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

The Commission for the Administration of Justice - as we've seen in relation to judges - seems to be a powerless talking shop.

It is a good forum and it has developed... I would give more powers to the Commission. I already proposed this when we drafted a White Paper around three years ago. The scenario since then has changed and we have had an opportunity to reflect on certain things.

What kind of powers would you give it?

Today we have a scenario where (the options open to the Commission) are either to do nothing or go for impeachment. We need to have something in between.

Like what?

You can introduce a system of name and shame; you can introduce a system where you reduce a magistrate or judge's workload or you give him other work. My objective, however, is not to turn someone into a scapegoat but to create a system that the public have more confidence in; so people would be able to see there is a mechanism to deal with (judges and magistrates') shortcomings. If I have shortcomings, for example, there is a mechanism whereby the Prime Minister can send for me and say 'that's it as far as you're concerned'.

The Commission has named and shamed two judges for belonging to organisations in breach of the code, and they're still there. Nothing was done.

They're still there but I think the Commission's words carry certain weight. The more weight we give it, the more sense and reason there will be.

But they flouted this and are carrying on as usual.

This is true. But the Commission is also thinking about how these issues can be handled better. We should use the voice of reason with the judiciary - rather than come down hard on them.

That's been tried and it failed. So what can be done now?

It has not failed... I don't believe we should have a system where people are chopped, but we need to have a better mechanism in the Commission for the Administration of Justice to bring about more conformity among its components. The most important message we need to get across is that the judges are not just individuals but members of a common body.

What action can you take - none?

Personally, none. And I would be acting in an anti-Constitutional manner if I were to do so. Action has to be taken by the Commission and we have also strengthened the hand of the Chief Justice. This has given him more control and it's having a positive effect.

What can he do about the two judges who are clearly flouting the code?

The Chief Justice has already done everything he could. What I don't want is for people to think that the Commission is being beefed-up because of this situation. This situation is one of a number that are being addressed by the Commission... Today we should have a system whereby the Chief Justice and Commission should be able to ask a judge why a case is taking so long to conclude.

But it can't take sanctions. So it can talk, but it can't act.

It can take sanctions because the Chief Justice has the power to redistribute work.

So the State might end up paying a judge for doing nothing.

No. What's important is for every judge to realise where he can improve... The way I like to look at it is: what's the problem? Can such and such a judge address it, or not? And where's the best place for that judge? It's a question of making the best use of your team - like the Prime Minister does. We're making the Chief Justice more of a first among equals than he was previously because ultimately he's the one who decides which portfolio his judges have.

Would you consider taking prosecution out of the hands of the police force?

Not at this moment in time. But I believe we need a prosecution unit, distinct from the police force, that is made up of people who have undergone legal training.

On the lines of the Crown Prosecution Service that exists in England?

Yes. I am also concerned about the time being wasted by police inspectors and superintendents who have to go to court three or four times for two cases. This means he spends all morning in court when he could be solving crime. It's important that synchronisation improves. This is necessary because the police these days are taking more cases to court, and this element is not stressed enough. There was an increase of 20 per cent in new cases of compilation of evidence in recent years.