The Data Protection Commissioner has found that the Police Commissioner did not request any call logs or other information from any service provider related to the controversy over a man who was wrongly accused of a hold-up.
Jason Azzopardi, shadow minister for home affairs, said these findings contradicted a statement on television by Police Commissioner Peter Paul Zammit that he had seen the logs on the strength of the Data Protection Law. This meant, he said, that either the commissioner had not been saying the truth, or he acquired the logs through other means.
But in a statement this evening, the police said Dr Azzopardi's argument was 'legally and factually baseless' as what was said was that the police had a call log.
The controversy arose after the PN had claimed that the Home Affairs Ministry had used Joseph Attard, known as Iz-Zambi as a go-between for Silvio Scerri, chief of staff at the Home Affairs Ministry, to speak to Darryl Luke Borg before the Police Board considered the case.
The Data Protection Commissioner looked into communications between Silvio Scerri, Darryl Luke Borg, the person who was wrongly accused of committing the hold-up, his mother Jane and Charles Attard, but found that no request for the call logs or call profiles had been made by the police.
Dr Azzopardi added that the Data Protection Commissioner had also said that even if the Police Commissioner had made the request,it could not be upheld because the alleged crime did not carry a crime of at least one year imprisonment.
"The Data Protection Commission's ruling is an indictment of crass incompetence byt he Police Commissioner, who quoted sections of the law which were not even applicable," Dr Azzopardi said.
The Nationalist MP said that yet again, the PN was calling on the Prime Minister, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Police Commissioner to shoulder their responsibilities.
ARGUMENTS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY BASELESS
In a statement, the police said it never said it requested the call profile of anyone connected to Inspector Taliana’s case from the service provider. What was said was that the police had a call log.
Dr Azzopardi failed to understand the distinction between a call profile and a call log so his arguments on what the Data Protection Commissioner said were baseless factually and legally.
Regarding Norman Vella’s case, the police did its duty according to law, which was to uncover and investigate crimes and conserve evidence it considered relevant to the case.
Every investigation started from a suspicion, which could eventually lead to the arraignment of a person
In this case, no one was arraigned in court and the police exhibited Mr Vella’s mobile phone and table according to the legal procedure and under the authority of the Court, which decided on the matter.
This was so much so that even though the Court ordered the police to return the phone and tablet to Mr Vella, this could not be done as these were exhibited in court and were not in police possession and control.