Police deny that Sliema Mayor was under duress
Sliema Mayor Nikki Dimech.
The Police this afternoon categorically denied a report in another website that Sliema Mayor Nikki Dimech had been under duress when he admitted to the police that he had asked for a commission from a contractor.
"The Police Force categorically denies all the allegations made by "friends of Mr Nikki Dimech" that he "only signed the second statement to be able to go back home as soon as possible, and that pleas to have his inhaler brought to him at police HQ went ignored", the police said in a statement.
"Mr Dimech was afforded all constitutional rights available to all suspects undergoing police interrogation in Malta. He even requested and was allowed to consult with a lawyer of his choice prior to the interrogation. Mr Dimech's inhaler and pills were also brought to Police General Headquarters, by a friend of his, whilst he was in police custody, however, he did not request to make use of them."
The police said that all preliminary investigations into this matter showed that the allegations made were untrue and were being spread "simply to tarnish the reputation of the Police Force and that of the investigating officer".
The "sources" behind these false allegations "may also be liable to legal action in terms of the law", the police added.
Mr Dimech was dismissed from the Nationalist Party after the police interrogation but he has refused to step down.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
47 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 15th 2010, 12:59
@ Kevin Cassar. On what others have told me, I believe your story. The "supposed identification" was meant to make you believe that you were recognised and you admit .
That is why giving advice to an arrested suspect does not cover the whole situation. It only refers to the statement.
When did this happen, if I may ask ?
Kevin Cassar
Aug 15th 2010, 19:59
It was about 23 years ago.
I know now that the supposed identification was not true and if something of the sort happened today, I'd be better prepared, but that's what makes it so abusive. They abused the fact that we were very young and obviously shocked by the whole ordeal. You can probably try to imagine the frustration I felt at the whole expereince, knowing that I was totally innocent, had a ROCK SOLID alibi and a multitude of witnesses to being at a football match at the time of the crime (I was a goalkeeper so it was easy to remember and identify me at the match). At the same time I they threatened to keep us locked until we brought back the stolen goods. We had no idea that they could hold us for 48 hours, so we had no idea for how long we'd be kept in there, treated worse than actual criminals who get tv and food.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 15th 2010, 11:48
@ G Mangion. Readers are keeping me here rather than going to swim. But.....
Certainly I agree with you that it was fair to release an innocent man. But did the procedure satisfy fairness when he was detained ? Something must have gone wrong. Miscarriage of justice takes place, because even the Police, Magistrates, Judges and Jurors and Courts of Appeal are human.
One can sue for damages for length of detention under Art 5(3) and 6(1) of the Convention. But these are often "token" figures. In cases of miscarriage of justice, first the person must be finally condemned (after appeal) and then new evidence has to be obtained.
The truth is that we are loathe to admit mistakes. When I read UK Criminal Appeals and other judgments, I understand how small we are, and how difficult it is to say that another judge of magistrate censures another.
Andrew Battenti
Aug 15th 2010, 11:40
The perceived prevalence of corruption in the public sphere inevitably has a detrimental effect on the community at large because it discourages the spirit of community. Perceived corruption inevitably actualizes (Malta currently ranks 45th on the global Corruption Perceptions Index, well behind some developing countries).
There is the need to keep a balanced perspective in all this. This is no legal dispute -- a soul literally hangs in the balance.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 15th 2010, 12:10
That is surely an importnat question, unrelated to this press report. If we concentrate on the sin rather than the alleged sinner, that can be a fruitful discussion.
I have already written that it is imperative that the law of "prescription" with reference to corruption should be removed. This means that a corrupt person does not gain immunity with the passage of time ( as if you do not receive a summons within three months from a parking offence). Either remove it, or else the time limit should start running from the day the the corrupt person does not hold office- and power. Otherwise his power would stifle any attempt to speak out.
There is more to be done. But let us start at least.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 15th 2010, 11:31
@ Ian Pace. We do not have a "legislative referendum". The Italians have it. We have a consultative non-binding referendum, and a "repealing" one (inventing a new name in English calling it "Abrogative Referendum"). You find this in Chapter 237 Laws of Malta The Referenda Act (Another mistake in English because the plural of "referendum" is "referendums")
@ Dunstan Crockford. You mentioned Raymond Caruana. I was tempting to write about Peter Paul Busuttil and Nicholas Ellul (now deceased). But I do not relish going into "political" arguments. My comments here about whether Mr X, Y or Z should have a trial by the media fomented by "leakages" and statements from the police. This was started by Commissioner Bencini who gave a press conference about Dr A Cachia Zammit. I was furious then. I have not changed. So practices seemed not to have changed, except that there is more style, but the result is the same.
MBorg
Aug 15th 2010, 11:05
@ all
Why don't you all read what Dr. Joe Brincat wrote ? He is a lawyer , what he writes is always correct and to the point.
I do not know if Mr Dimech commited said crime , but I feel that we must all give him a chance to prove his innocence before pronouncing him guilty.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 15th 2010, 11:55
No, X is not bound to prove his innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Not just because "The Times said so").
Imagine a situation where a husband/wife accuses the other of adultery. How is he/she going to prove it ? Forensic tests for DNA ? Hypothetically let's say this is done, and the result favours innocence. What keeps the accusing partner from saying that the other is still guilty because he/she had a good bath ? Hope I have been clear.
Dunstan Crockford
Aug 15th 2010, 10:16
The above is rather baffling! Reading the comments beneath...a big PROSIT to Dr.Joe Brincat...always a brilliant lawyer who is making us aware of legal points hitherto unknown or unpublicised!!! Thanks Dr.Brincat...a person I always admired..eloquent and to the point ..always!!
A,person who always stood up for real justice! I vividly remember his presence at Raymond Caruana`s funeral,together with his family..now that took guts didn`t it!!
I know I am `out of subject`...but I felt I had to write this! Bear with me!
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 15th 2010, 09:38
Confessions were always allowed as evidence in England, even when torture was used to elicit them however, in the mid–eighteenth century judges in England started to admit only confessions that they considered trustworthy. To determine the trustworthiness of a confession, judges considered the circumstances surrounding it, whether a threat or promise coerced the suspect to confess, and whether the suspect confessed voluntarily in the presence of their lawyers.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 15th 2010, 09:18
One vital function of our judicial system is to determine the guilt or innocence of suspects who have been accused of crimes. Confessions can play a key role in making this determination. Our courts have experienced the unreliability of inaccurate or involuntary confessions—such as that of the infamous police frame up of the prison warder in the 80s, which have been obtained as the result of threats, trickery and torture. What are our legislators waiting for to enact laws to prevent untrustworthy confessions?
We have seen many articles and letters written about the constitutional rights of suspects, and how trickery into confession should be illegal. It is not considered unconstitutional, however, because suspects have the right to refuse to answer questions posed by the police, but they don’t have a legal right to have a lawyer present during the interrogations. Nine times out of ten if suspects demand the presence of a lawyer, their lawyer would advise them not to fall for the investigating officers’ lines of questioning.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 15th 2010, 09:16
@ Oliver Mallia.
Do you know that an accused has a right to remain silent during his whole trial ?
Do you know that it is the prosecution that has to prove the case against him ?
Do you know that even if in a trial by jury (and this has happened with Judge Flores), the accused pleads guilty, the Judge may refuse such a plea, and orders that the case be continued ?
Do you know that an accused has a right to defend himself, without a lawyer ?
Contrary to your impression, I have formed another one. Print a damaging report in the press against a person. From then on, a person becomes guilty ( and in some posts, even punishment is decided). The verdict is out online. Almost it is high time that huge savings be made by scrapping a justice system.
Do you remember the case of the young man who admitted to the Police that he raped a woman in Floriana ? He was imprisoned. When it resulted that he did not commit the offence, he was released. Fair?
G. Mangion
Aug 15th 2010, 11:15
Dr Joe Brincat.
In my humble opinion I think that yes it is Fair :
Miscarriages of Justice happens too, and the young man who admitted to the Police that he raped a woman in Floriana when it resulted that he did not commit the offence, he was released.
Why did he admit in the first place ? Also he had an option if he wanted to sew the C.O.P please do correct me if I am wrong
Kevin Cassar
Aug 15th 2010, 12:07
@ Dr Brincat
Do you know that an accused has a right to remain silent during his whole trial ?
Yes but try to remain silent when you're surrounded by policemen who may beat you up if you don't say exactly what they want to hear. Try being an innocent teen surprised by being taken to the police station and accused of something which you have no idea about. Try spending 48 hours locked in a dark cell without food or drink and without even being allowed to call your parents.Try being asked to face the wall while a person supposedly enters the room and recognizes you as the guilty party from behind, when at the time of the crime you were playing a football match with hundreds of witnesses.
This is my personal experience. I was accused of stealing something from an old woman with a friend of mine who was roughed up much more than I was because he was of a bigger build. We were never arraigned and never even got the satisfaction of seeing who the person that accused us was. Nobody can give me back my 48 hours.
oliver mallia
Aug 15th 2010, 07:54
Following most of the comments now I have learned that during interrogation better not talk and latter on the lawyer will cover you up
oliver mallia
Aug 15th 2010, 07:49
@ Joseph Schembri
Yes Hon Carm Mifsud Bonnici let people under interrogation have a lawyer ……. This is almost a basic human right yet you …. Jien naffeg, l-avulat jatti u l-poplu jhalas.
Robert Callus
Aug 14th 2010, 22:39
Signing any statement should be video recorded and in the presence of a defense lawyer. It is a safeguard for both the police and the suspects. There have been many similar allegations of duress. Are they for real or false claims? Unless there are the necessary checks we will never know.
Joseph Ellis
Aug 14th 2010, 21:27
I think that the Police Force should explain why the statement that allegedly was given voluntarily by Mr Dimech while under detention was leaked to the press. As Dr Brincat pointed out, this violates Mr Dimech's constitutional right to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.
Whether guilty or not, everyone should be entitled to due process.
One feels that our police force, for obvious reasons, relies too heavily on obtaining a statement from the person being investigated in order to close its investigations. Once an accused is not obliged to testify in criminal proceedings, it is not on that pressure is put on a detained person to give a statement which can be used against him in court.
It is also clear that the right, and which is not constitutional as alleged by the police, to consult a lawyer prior to such interrogation is inadequate especially when the consulted lawyer is unaware what his assisted is being accused of. Actually, people are better off if they do not consult a lawyer and just refrain from giving out any statement.
It is high time that the current situation undergoes a radical rethink.
Ian Pace
Aug 15th 2010, 08:39
May be you are correct. But what if the accused is made to believe that without issuing a statemrnt he is admitting guilt and that would be used as a proof againts him in court? I also heard that "even not signing the statement could be used against you in court". As it mean you did not co-operate with the Police. And let say an accused decides not to give a statement, what proof will he has that he did not issue one? What would be your solution if a "fabricated statement" crops up in court? Recordings are the only solution to both interrogators and accused. The normal citizen does not know his rights/laws so most people would beleive what the Interrogators say, after all they are bound to protect the law so they should not be "lieing". Utopia maybe?
Charles J. Buttigieg
Aug 14th 2010, 21:11
You may argue about police investigations until the cows come home and dry. You will only be wasting your time if you are trying to convince that any suspect would voluntarily admit his guilt to an investigating officer unless they’re offered a reward to minimise their sentence. We’ve seen it in the movies; I wonder if it is true, signed confessions are normally made after the interrogators beat the daylight out of their suspect.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 14th 2010, 20:11
@ Mr Aquilina. "Maybe I am saying something stupid ... and if so please [with all honestly] correct me ... but couldn't they just record on video the interrogation? Like that (in court) it would be easy for the police force to show that they did not do what they are accused to have done".
Not stupid at all. I would say a brilliant idea. Police interrogators now use computers to type the statement. It may only require an installed webcam directed on the face of the suspect, which then records. A copy should be given to the suspect. Years ago, health inspectors used to get milk samples from a farm, one to take away and one to be given to farmer.
Your suggestion would not cost the Treasury big sums. Recordable cds or dvds are really cheap now.
Incidentally, for some time now, I have been copying long documents of reference, to be filed in court, on cds, rather than printing.
Ian Pace
Aug 15th 2010, 08:29
Dr Brincat, could you guide us if there is a way of how a normal citizen induces an amendment in law? Can we start a petition of some sort? Honest and serious, and I know many, Police officers would have nothing against recording interrogations. Both audio and video so even body language of both interrogator and accused are recorded.
Andrew Battenti
Aug 14th 2010, 20:07
Dear Mr. Dimech,
It is not the end of the world. Kindly serve the community you are duty bound to serve. There are many ways you can do this, out of the public spotlight.
All the very best.
Martin Debono
Aug 14th 2010, 19:54
I'm surprised the police even had time to interrogate him, what with all the arrests they've been doing lately of skin dippers, people found with one ecstasy pill in their pocket, authors who break 'decency' laws, and what have you.
J Brincat
Aug 14th 2010, 19:38
I have no doubt that they offered him a nice expresso too.
They are so adorable these angeles
Dennis Zammit
Aug 14th 2010, 19:30
Are these 'friends' of the mayor involved in this matter? Are they involved in the alleged corruption?
I think they are covering their backs!
Normally, anyone asking for a lawyer does so to cover his back. If you ask for a lawyer, it means you need one. I cannot understand why all this fuss.
Mayor Dimech should just resign and allow the investigations to take their course. If he is proved innocence, he would have got his revenge and cleared his name.
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 14th 2010, 19:28
"Art 6(2) will be violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards the accused as guilty" (Taken from Strasbourg ECHR decision A & V vs Malta),
On the basis of a previous report, a Mr A Caruana wrote "How can you say that he is innocent if he himself ADMITTED that he ......" I do not blame Mr Caruana, but is this right and proper ?
For interrogations the Police have a code of ethics. According to the code, recording is optional !!!!!!!
I have avoided commenting on the merits of the case. X may be guilty or not guilty. I do not know. What is important is that we do fall victims to the trend to have trials by the press - and supporters and opponents clubs ! Justice is not a football match.
I. Portelli
Aug 14th 2010, 19:26
G. Camilleri seems to think that since the PN came to power in 1987 everything turned pretty and fine at police HQ.
just pray you never end up there, the solicitor being present at interrogation (as applied) is a joke. wake up -
nothing is what it seems.
Joseph Aquilina
Aug 14th 2010, 19:22
Maybe I am saying something stupid ... and if so please [with all honestly] correct me ... but couldn't they just record on video the interrogation? Like that (in court) it would be easy for the police force to show that they did not do what they are accused to have done.
M Attard
Aug 14th 2010, 18:46
Wouldn't it be better and fairer if the person who is being interrogated is allowed to have his solicitor present?. As it stands now,it's one word against another,besides which it's totally unfair and unjust to the person being questioned. This problem wouldn't have arisen neither.
Ian Pace
Aug 14th 2010, 18:29
Record all Police Interrogations. We law abiding citizens have nothing to hide...... I can assure all readers that it would be a BENEFIT to us. Then and only then can a Honorable Magistrate/Judge truly decide in favour or against the accused. The recording would place the Magistrate/Judge in the interrogation process. No one would claim abuse during or after any interrogation anymore. I know what I am talking about. It would also be a great benefit to the professional Police Interrogators.
G. Mangion
Aug 14th 2010, 19:02
Mr Ian Pace ( The recording would place the Magistrate/Judge in the interrogation process. No one would claim abuse during or after any interrogation anymore ) Your quote:
Wrong ! back in the mlp era, there were Frame ups by Manipulating a tape recorder and many of them too. let alone today by the enormuos increse of Technology in Malta what can be DONE if GOD forbid we fall back to the 70's & 80's
M Grima
Aug 14th 2010, 19:16
you never heard of tampered tapes?. A defence lawyer being present during the interview is the best solution.
Ian Pace
Aug 15th 2010, 08:25
Of course I heard with tampered tapes and I know what happened back in the 80s. God forbid that the Police Force acts the way they acted then. But tapes cannot be tampered unless a copy is given, by law, to the accused as soon as the recording ends. Nowadays everything is being privatised, who knows maybe it could be an idea (an idea mind you) that a private company or the Judiciature takes over the depot cells and monitors each movement including the cells with a CCTV which can only be retrieved by a higher court order. So even this "entity' would not have access to the recordings. No monitors need to be involved. I can assure you no real or no "invented" beatings would occur. This does not mean that all Police Officers are not trusted but they (the Police) would have a copy (in court) of what the accused went through once he was in their custody and the Professional officers would have their mind at rest that no one would accuse them of anything. Or if anyone does they could prove him/her wrong.
Victor Ross
Aug 14th 2010, 18:29
I am no lawyer but I am aware that as things stand now every suspect prior to police interrogation must be aked whether he wants legal help prior to his interrogation, That is now standard practise. What should be clear here is that if the suspect accepts legal advice prior to interrogation the "law of inference" will be applied. That means that if a suspect keeps on denying and refusing to collaborate after legal advice it is assumed that "now" he really has something to hide. And that puts him at a disadvantage in the eyes of the law
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 14th 2010, 18:06
This is becoming a tragic farce now. First the police "sources" leak the contents of a statement to the press (nothing illegal about that ????? No Article 133 of Criminal Code, no Article 8 of Press Act ) and now an official statement from the police to deny a rebuttal. What is more alarming is that the police are insisting that the statement of X was "voluntary". It may be or it may be not. It is only in due process of law that these documents are filed and proof that the statement was voluntary is established.
That he was a nationalist mayor gives me more strength to press on these arguments.
As to his Constitutional Rights, one should read Art 39 of the Constitution. Trial is in a court of law. As to police duties, one should refer to the Criminal Code which stipulates that shall bring together with the accused all evidence etc. It does not say that first it should be whispered to the press.
J. J. Borg
Aug 14th 2010, 18:03
Was a lawyer present? Was the interrogation recorded? If not, the police have only themselves to blame if suspects bring forward these allegations. Frankly I don't know why anyone would want to answer any questions under those conditions.
Jeremy J Camilleri
Aug 14th 2010, 18:29
Did you even read statement issued by the Police? Ill cut and paste...for your benefit...
'He even requested and was allowed to consult with a lawyer of his choice prior to the interrogation'
Stefan Kottmann
Aug 14th 2010, 19:23
Prior to the interrogation, not during. And prior means a timed, 30-minute telephone call. What happens in the many hours after that?
J. J. Borg
Aug 14th 2010, 19:49
Let me do a little cutting and pasting of my own for your benefit, Jeremy J. Camilleri, and maybe you should also re-read my comment too while you're at it:
"was allowed to consult with a lawyer of his choice PRIOR to the interrogation".
G. Mangion
Aug 14th 2010, 17:49
@ Stefan Kottmann
A lawyer present during the interrogation is Very, very different from the : MIRANANDA RULUING AS IS PRACTICED IN THE U.S. and if you have any doubt just ask a Lawyer if you are not one already. Passed are those Days when the Police used to use such methods when interrogating a person, yes they used all the unimagabile methods to get a Statment from a person under there custody But that has Long Stopped Since the P.N came to power
nearly half a century ago !! when the Regime of the mlp lost the election, It then at those times that Men were so Shamfully Saveged when under an Investigation @ the P.H.Q.
Joseph Schembri
Aug 14th 2010, 17:45
Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici - the solution to stop people from 'lying' after being interrogated by the police is so simple. Amnesty international have pointed it out to you. I have done so on countless times too. All democratic countries are also an example.
Let people under interrogation have a lawyer of their choice being present during interrogation! This is almost a basic human right yet you still desist from granting it to your people.
c. camilleri
Aug 14th 2010, 17:37
@ Stefan Kottmann. Pls do not write about something which you know little about. This Govt is one of the liberal Govt. that Malta has ever had. Of course much much better than that of the 70s and 80's when interrogation by the police meant beating, torture and even death. There were no cries for lawyers than from the leftists.
Stefan Kottmann-Soler
Aug 14th 2010, 19:56
I don't need to compare the current situation with that of any other period. Just because we are not living in the worst of times does not mean that the current laws regarding legal assistance are adequate. I think they are not. And as for 'leftists not crying out for lawyers' in the 70s and 80s etc - I think the country had to change the police force rather than provide lawyers! And with changing the police force, I mean things such as (a) establishing the Police Academy which provides training in human rights, ethics etc and (b) by establishing the SAG to control riots and restore a sense of calm in the country.
Julian Borg
Aug 14th 2010, 19:56
"the 70s and 80's"... so that's our yardstick in 2010?
"This Govt is one of the liberal Govt." Either you're joking or you have no clue of what the term 'liberal' means.
Aron Mifsud Bonnici
Aug 14th 2010, 20:32
"This Govt is one of the liberal Govt. that Malta has ever had." ROFL!!
Censorship of artistic expression and literature, prosecution of student skinny-dippers, denying citizens basic civil rights like divorce, no separation between state and religion make Malta one of the most conservative European countries. I wonder what made you think otherwise.
Stefan Kottmann
Aug 14th 2010, 17:00
Wasn't it Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici who, on Xarabank, said that he disagrees with a lawyer present DURING the interrogation (as opposed to having access to one via telephone for 30 minutes) because the lawyer would say 'don't say this, don't say that'. OF COURSE! It suits the interrogators not to have a lawyer present, doesn't it? And it suits the government to have seemed to have given citizens access to a lawyer when in fact this is only for 30 minutes PRIOR the interrogation. And it suits the prosecution that your silence may corrobate your guilt, doesn't it?