Government’s plea thrown out in case over former policeman’s dismissal
A former police inspector turned lawyer and who later was allegedly involved in a string of major crimes, won a small victory in the civil court yesterday over his dismissal from the force 10 years ago.
David Gatt, whom the police believe is behind some big attempted robberies in recent years, was sacked after the Police Commissioner came to believe he was involved in criminal activity.
He is currently out on bail waiting to face charges concerning his alleged running of a criminal gang. Curious details have emerged of how he allegedly imagined the gang to be the Maltese version of the Sicilian Mafia with him as the equivalent of the rootless Corleonese boss Toto Riina.
Years back, Dr Gatt was one of three police inspectors who, the appeals court had declared, were unfairly dismissed by the force through the Public Service Commission (PSC), in a ruling which hinges on the fact that they had not been told there were procedures against them and so could not defend themselves.
The police and the government stood by their decision, stressing there had been valid grounds for the dismissals.
Last November, Police Commissioner John Rizzo asked the PSC to reconsider the case against them.
The men, surprised at the fresh attempt to seek disciplinary action against them, then applied for an injunction arguing they had already faced such proceedings in 2001 and the courts had declared their dismissal unfair.
They also pointed out they were not receiving a salary from the government and, therefore, could not undergo proceedings before the commission.
Mr Justice Joseph Micallef had upheld their request, ruling they had prima facie grounds to block the action.
According to law, a decision to stop the legal action remains in force for 20 working days after which the plaintiff would have to file a case for it to become permanent.
Yesterday, preliminary pleas were heard in the case filed by Dr Gatt.
The Prime Minister, the Police Commissioner and the head of the PSC claimed the civil court had no Constitutional competence to stop the PSC from taking action.
Mr Justice Micallef, however, dismissed this plea.
In June a court expert testified that Dr Gatt would be eligible for a €137,500 payout if he wins a civil court case for arrears, following the unfair dismissal decision.
Dr Gatt is currently out on bail and is pleading not guilty to being involved in the theft of more than €1 million from a Balzan bank in 2007, the failed heist on HSBC’s headquarters in Qormi which ended in a shootout with the police in June last year, the failed attempt to break into a security van carrying about €2.8 million in cash last year and the attempted robbery of a jeweller in Attard in December.
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 1st 2011, 17:18
The Corleone boss Toto' Rina was not "rootless". He was "ruthless". I cannot imagine how anyone, least of all, an Inspector of Police, would have the brazen cheek to expect that he should be retained in the Malta Police Force after choosing Toto' Rina as a role model for his constabulary career.
Ms Rose Cilia
Oct 1st 2011, 14:37
The Prime Minister, the Police Commissioner and the head of the PSC claimed the civil court had no Constitutional competence to stop the PSC from taking action.
Mr Justice Micallef, however, dismissed this plea.
It looks like those at the helm do not know the maltese laws enough! Let us hope this mistake would not cost us 137,500 euros!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 1st 2011, 09:27
"'If the law supposes that', said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is a ass — a idiot.'" (Charles Dickens - Oliver Twist)
Victor Zammit
Oct 1st 2011, 13:08
We all too readily quote that Dickens’s famous quotation, invariably out of context. But I bet very few know what prompted Mr Bumble to retort the way he did. Here goes: "That is no excuse," replied Mr. Brownlow. "...for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction." "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble..., "the law is a ass- a idiot....” My comment is that Mr Brownlow spoke of his times in Victorian Britain, so his supposition and the Law’s are no asses. But Mr Bumble (or Mr Dickens) must have had great foresight about the equality of the sexes as obtains nowadays in jurisdictions. So here and now it is not the law that is an ass but whoever tries to bring back Mr Brownlow’s suppostion. In other words the ass is not the law but its application.