Former Police Commissioner Peter Paul Zammit admitted in court today that two CID officers "mucked up" when they wrongly accused a man of a robbery but added that this did not merit disciplinary action.
Mr Zammit said he, however, felt that action ought to be taken against another police inspector, Elton Taliana, for failing to inform his superiors immediately that he had caught the right man and for not taking immediate action for the person who was wrongly in custody to be released.
Mr Zammit, who was Police Commissioner between May 2013 and June 2014, was testifying before Magistrate Francesco Depasquale in a libel suit Mr Taliana filed against General Workers' Union weekly newspaper, It-Torca.
He said that the case had uncovered the lack of communication between two branches of the Police Force - the Criminal Investigations Department and the district police - who were investigating the same case.
Darryl Luke Borg, 27, had been remanded in custody after being charged with holding up a Birkirkara confectionery in August 2013. Two days later the mistake came to light when Inspector Taliana arraigned Roderick Grech over the incident. He pleaded guilty and was given a suspended sentence.
Inspector Taliana, who had arraigned the right man, had been chastised by the Police Board for failing to alert his chain of command about a mistake made by the Criminal Investigations Department.
An internal police inquiry, published 18 months after it was presented to Mr Zammit, recommended disciplinary action against two CID inspectors after the wrong man was arrested following a hold up. It also found that Mr Taliana, who eventually arrested the right person and brought him to justice, acted according to procedure.
But according to Mr Zammit, no action was ever taken against Police Inspectors Carlos Cordina and Joseph Mercieca because he felt it was "not opportune".
He said the internal inquiry had found that the CID officers had "rushed" when they arraigned Mr Borg and in its recommendations had said that although disciplinary action ought to be taken against the officers, he should take into consideration their experience and previous conduct within the force.
"On the basis of this, I decided that no action should be taken against them as they had learnt their lesson. It was my responsibility to decide. I did not feel the need of a full-blown prosecution. But I felt that action ought to be taken against Inspector Taliana because he failed to inform his superiors about the fact that there was an innocent person in jail," Mr Zammit, a legal procurator, said.
Mr Taliana's lawyer, Joe Zammit Maempel, pointed out that Mr Taliana arraigned the right person within 45 minutes of a statement in which he admitted his involvement with the police. Mr Zammit said Mr Taliana's primary concern at that point should have been taking action for an innocent person to be released from jail immediately.
"I would have preferred if Mr Taliana took this action rather than charge a man in court," Mr Zammit said as he confirmed that according to law a police officer had to take a decision "promptly" on whether to arraign or release a person investigated over a crime.
He confirmed that it was on his insistence that Mr Borg's defence lawyers filed an urgent application for their client to be released from jail.
In his opinion, the Police Board only concentrated on an aspect of the entire issue and "had not looked at the bigger picture". He said both investigations how revealed "teasing" (inkejja) between two police branches.
Constantly referring to the matter as a "misfortune", Mr Zammit also confirmed under cross examination that "in retrospect", there was "a considerable difference" between the person who the CID officers saw in the confectionery's CCTV footage and Mr Borg, who was much taller than Mr Grech. However, he attempted to justify this by saying that Mr Borg's mother had failed to provide an alibi for her son.
"Inspector Taliana had not informed his superiors that he had apprehended the right person and that this person had admitted. The CID had only informed the district police about their arraignment after the matter, when it was already a fait accompli and when it was too late," he said after it was pointed out to him that Mr Taliana had not only informed the presiding magistrate but also his superior, Superintendent Charles Magri.
Replying to another question, Mr Zammit said CID files were freely accessible but only at the CID office.
The case continues in June.
Lawyer Yana Micallef Stafrace appeared for the newspaper.