Advert

Magistrate rebukes police for overdoing arrest of a mother

A magistrate yesterday rebuked the police for having sent six officers to arrest a 46-year-old woman after she failed to appear in court.

This was an example of how an arrest should not be carried out, Magistrate Anthony Vella said, even as he reprimanded the woman who was charged with resisting the police.

Rose Parnis, of Naxxar, failed to appear in a court case presided over by Magistrate Silvio Meli, in 2009. The magistrate issued a warrant of accompaniment, meaning that at the next sitting she would have to be brought to court by a court usher.

On the day in question, October 7, 2009, three police officers were sent to execute a warrant of arrest, which prompted Magistrate Vella to remark yesterday he could only presume this had happened because of a mistake as a result of the big workload in the courts.

Ms Parnis called her lawyer, refusing to accompany the officers and resisting arrest. At this point, Magistrate Vella heard, another three policemen arrived.

The woman’s son got involved and the woman protested and physically resisted the policemen when they were arresting him.

Magistrate Vella said Ms Parnis certainly did not have an extensive criminal record which merited six officers going to arrest her.

He could not understand why such force was used to execute the warrant. It was an example, he said, of how an arrest should not be carried out.

On the other hand, it was never acceptable, no matter how minimum the resistance was, to defy the police in that manner. But he could also understand Ms Parnis was trying to prevent her son from being arrested, he said.

In handing down judgment, Magistrate Vella said the incident could have easily been avoided if the police had used a little more diplomacy and not blown the case out of proportion. He said a reprimand and admonition should be a sufficient punishment for the woman in this case. Lawyer Joe Mifsud appeared for Ms Parnis.

Advert

2 Comments

Post comment

Please see our new Comments Policy

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

For more details please see our Comments Policy

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Silvio Zammit

Feb 4th 2011, 15:57

I would say: “Sometimes it is IMMORAL how the law courts act.”
My case, according to an ex-judge should have taken two months to decide. Well it has been going on for the last SIX YEARS and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. The main reason for the delay being that the lawyer against whom I am taking action failed to appear in court ABOUT 20 TIMES.
The irony of it all is that I initiated this court case to revoke a previous court decree by a different Magistrate handed down against me for not appearing for the FIRST SITTING of a case; the reason being that I was misinformed by my lawyer’s secretary of the date of the sitting. The court did not accept my lawyer’s explanation and as a result a damning court decision was handed down causing me great financial damage without EVER being given the possibility to appear in court to state my case.
Last week I made an attempt to point out to the presiding magistrate of my current case that my human rights were being negated by the court’s delay for which I was expelled from the hearing and fined.

Advert
Advert