In her letter published on February 13, Margaret Pace Bonello asked a pertinent question: “What is the point of going through the expense of installing CCTV cameras when they are of no use to the authorities when they need them?”

She was referring to the CCTV footage in the Mosta cat killer case, where the camera that filmed the culprit was badly focused and had poorly aligned balance between daytime and night-time viewing.

The camera was also not well-maintained and the results showed it. Deterioration of cameras over time is normal, which is why maintenance is hugely important.

Likewise, it is important to choose the right CCTV system to fit your specific requirements and to opt for a system that is reliable, not cheap.

The Mosta case is a good example of how CCTV footage can help solve crimes, but it is also a good example of how poor maintenance and low-quality systems can leave you with nothing but a false sense of security.

The reply to Ms Pace Bonello’s question is this: There is no point in going through the expense of installing CCTV cameras unless you invest in the right equipment and maintain it accordingly. If you do, you can solve crimes with ease and you can also prevent crimes from happening in the first place. (Just last week, CCTV footage at Malta Freeport helped solve the case of a €1 million container of counterfeit cigarettes.)

However, the reader’s question also begs another.

If the police began investigating the cat killer case in October

2011 and have still arraigned no one, would the taxpayer have been better served if the money spent on the investigation was instead invested in high quality, properly-maintained CCTV cameras placed in strategic areas?