The police are at the bar of public opinion, accused of hauling before the courts a man whom they should have realised was innocent.

The Police Board, which is looking into the case, is expected to submit a report to the authorities listing its findings and, hopefully, making specific recommendations. These should hopefully lead to action being taken against those who failed in their duties – if that is indeed the case – and, more importantly, rectify any wrongs and ensure there will be no repeat.

What we know so far is this: a 27-year-old was arraigned on Wednesday and charged with committing a hold-up at a grocery store in Birkirkara with two police inspectors telling the court the man had been identified through CCTV footage.

Two days later, a 22-year-old appears in court, confesses to the theft and an embarrassed police officer admits that it appeared there was a man in custody who had nothing to do with the crime.

The court took swift action to ensure that the innocent man would be released. The authorities were also quick to order an inquiry.

In terms of the Police Act, among other functions, the Police Board has “to expeditiously inquire into and report on any matter regarding the conduct of the force or any of its members either on its own motion or on any complaint which it receives or is referred to it by the minister”.

The same law also lays down that “it shall be an offence against discipline for a police officer to charge a person before the courts with an offence which is manifestly unfounded”.

The question thus is: was the first arraignment “manifestly unfounded”?

The first two police inspectors said in court the defendant had been identified through CCTV footage. Yet, it seems that the stature of the two men arraigned is quite different.

The second man pleaded guilty and also handed over to the police a balaclava and toy pistol used in the hold-up, evidence that was therefore missing in the first investigation.

Did the Criminal Investigation Department, which handled the first arraignment, continuously consult with the district police, who caught the culprit? What level of collaboration/consultation was there between the two branches?

The police are prone to make mistakes too, especially given their huge workload that gets heavier by the day. Yet, nothing can justify a person being put through such a trauma and accused of a crime he knows he did not commit.

As the maxim goes, better for a guilty person to go free than the innocent being wrongly convicted.

A civilised society is very jealous of the rule of law. Our Criminal Code contemplates tough punishment for “whosoever, with intent to harm any person, shall accuse such person before a competent authority of an offence of which he knows such person to be innocent”.

It is unlikely that this was a deliberate act to harm anybody. It is more probably a case of the right hand of the police not knowing what the left was doing. But it is still a serious case of miscommunication with serious consequences in terms of the upholding of a person’s human rights and liberty.

What happened last week reflects very badly on the credibility of the police. All eyes are now on the Police Board that meets again today.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.