Juan Ameen
PN agents demand re-opening of court case
Two Nationalist Party counting agents will today file an application to re-open court proceedings against two Labour supporters in connection with a fight that broke outside a polling station in the Euro-Parliamentary elections last June.
Grezzju Bondin and Joseph Brownrigg will make their request after Labour supporters Edwin Bartolo and Salvatore Mifsud told a magistrate earlier this week they had reached an agreement with the victims.
The counting agents denied ever reaching such an agreement.
Mr Bartolo, known as Il-Qaħbu, and Mr Mifsud, Tal-Qattus, were summoned to appear in court on Tuesday morning in connection with the fight that allegedly occurred in Żejtun on June 6. Both men are facing charges of attacking Mr Bondin and Mr Brownrigg.
The accused pleaded not guilty and were granted bail against a personal guarantee of €2,000 each.
All four men received a police summons to appear in court on Tuesday before Magistrate Tonio Micallef Trigona.
However, the time set for the case to start did not match. Mr Bartolo and Mr Mifsud were informed to appear at 9 a.m. while Mr Bondin and Mr Brownrigg had to appear at 11.30 a.m.
Accompanied by defence lawyer Edward Gatt, the two Labour supporters appeared in court at 9 a.m. When their case was about to start at about 11 a.m., Dr Gatt informed the magistrate that his clients had reached an agreement with the victims.
As is the practice in court, the usher called out Mr Bondin's and Mr Brownrigg's names for them to go into the courtroom. When they did not show up, the court decided to close the case, Dr Gatt said.
The victims' defence lawyer, John Bonello said he turned up with his clients just after 11 a.m. before Magistrate Micallef Trigona, only to be told that the case had been closed.
"My clients never told them they wanted to stop the proceedings and they never said they wanted to forgive them," Dr Bonello told The Times. In fact, he added, they would be filing a judicial application to re-open the case again.
In a statement, Dr Gatt explained that his clients had informed him that the case was settled, adding that he himself had asked the court to call the other party to confirm.
After the case was closed, the PN called on the authorities to take action against Mr Bartolo's and Mr Mifsud's defence lawyers.
However, the Chamber of Advocates intervened and spoke to the defence lawyers of both parties. The chamber noted that different times for the case hearing had been given and confirmed that Mr Bartolo and Mr Mifsud had said they had reached an agreement.
Chamber president Andrew Borg Cardona said he was satisfied none of the lawyers acted wrongly towards the court or the profession.
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 6th 2009, 09:09
It is not enough for the Chamber of Advocates to reassure the public that the lawyers involved in this case acted according to the book. Honest citizens who are obliged to cancel their activities so as to appear in court to give evidence must not be subjected to the humiliation of finding that, when they attend as instructed, the case has already been decided. The abuse in serving summons always to the benefit of the accused happens all too often for it to be dismissed as an honest “mistake”. In my own limited experience one case was decided in because the vital prosecution witness had not been served with any summons for that particular sitting, in another case the only prosecution witness, a traffic policeman was persuaded by a lawyer for the defense to make himself scarce when the case was called and a third traffic case was decided in the absence of the defendant when that wrongly charged person was under instruction from the Board of Petitions itself not to attend any court sittings relating to the case as long as the Petitions Board was still investigating the case. Something is very rotten in this state of Malta.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Nov 6th 2009, 08:23
@ Joseph Saliba
The judge did his duty well, he tried to call in the complainants to ascertain himself that the accused were saying the truth about the out of court settlement to no avail .The court, the accused and their attorneys were all under the impression that the case had to be convened at 0900 and since the hearing started after 0900 and the complainants were not present the case had to be dismissed. It appears that the complainants were summoned to appear at 1130 which explains their absence at 1100. The case was closed simply because the complainants didn’t show up in court, the rest is superfluous.
This should call for an internal investigation to establish whether there was a motive for the different times given to the different parties or whether it was an unfortunate administrative mistake. Irrespective of the findings the case must be reopened. People go to court to see justice and shouldn’t be expected to accept this kind of injustice emanating from the same ‘Court of Justice’.
Evarist Saliba
Nov 5th 2009, 16:30
Incredible and shameful.
This makes a mockery of the way our legal system is allowed to operate in some cases.
Once I was asked to appear as a witness at 09.00 hrs. When the court sittings were about to close for the mid-day break I asked what I was supposed to do. I was told that the accused had admitted the charge very early in the day and my evidence was not required. On another occasion, when I also had to be present in court at 09.00 hrs to give evidence, the prosecuting police officer agreed to a postponement to accomodate the defence lawyer. He did not bother to inform me even though I had come from abroad to be able to give my evidence. He had the cheek to blame me for not finding out what he had done.
Respect for our courts must be earned through the way they operate. Many law officers rise to the occasion, but others let them down rather badly and do not seem to suffer for it.
joseph saliba
Nov 5th 2009, 16:04
Who appoints the time and day of the sitting? Who prints and sends the 'referta'? Why not ask him/them how come same sitting different appointment time?
Is it so easy to make fun of our courts and get away with it? Shouldn't the magistrate have heard the other party before concluding?
Mike Farrugia
Nov 5th 2009, 10:25
is anyone responsible for the mistake? This was a trivial case but it could have been a more serious case such as drug trafficing or murder. Accountabilty and bureaucracy at it's best.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 5th 2009, 09:42
It would appear that this type of closure is not so rare after all. I know of another case when a prosecution witness who had lodged a traffic complaint with the police ( a serious collision) made several futile appearances in court because the accused consistently failed to appear. Very opportunely the case was dismissed at the subsequent sitting, behind the complainant's back, when he had not been notified at all of that sitting! Coincidence?