The Justice Minister had no problem publishing the inquiry report into last November’s nightclub incident in Paceville that left dozens injured, including minors. However, he acted differently in the case of October’s car show tragedy and preferred to be selective when briefing the media about the magistrate’s conclusions.

In his “information note”, the minister listed the primary and secondary causes of the incident.

Primarily, the incident occurred after the Porsche 918 driver lost control of the vehicle. This was mainly due to excessive speed and because the driver lacked experience and skill.

The inquiry concluded, we were told, that the driver was an amateur and a keen collector of hybrid vehicles but it did not result he had the required special skills and ability to drive such vehicles at a certain speed.

The organising committee was identified as bearing responsibility for the “secondary causes” of the incident.

The Times of Malta has asked for a copy of the magisterial inquiry report but it was a clear no by the Attorney General.

The Criminal Code lays down that the “acts and documents of the courts of criminal justice shall not be open to inspection, nor shall copies thereof be given, without the special permission of the court, except by or to the Attorney General, by or to the parties concerned or by or to any advocate or legal procurator authorised by such parties…

“Provided that a procès-verbal and any depositions and documents filed therewith shall be open to inspection, and copies thereof shall be given, only at the discretion of the Attorney General.”

So, although, by law, the Attorney General has the right to decide whether to grant access to an inquiry report, he should publicly explain why he decided to give a copy only to the minister. Will the parties involved in the case have access to the report?

The Attorney General seems to be missing a crucial point here, though he must have seen it very clearly in the Plus One inquiry: there is huge public interest in the case. Even because the Office of the President was involved since the activity was in aid of the Community Chest Fund.

The Attorney General’s decision to give access to the report only to the Justice Minister risks casting a shadow on the credibility of the inquiry itself because one can easily draw wrong conclusions based on the selective excerpts offered so far to the public.

One must also bear in mind that the inquiry report is 1,700 pages long and the points made by the minister barely covered two full pages. Indeed, the minister’s choice to be selective meant that, rather than giving answers, he gave rise to so many questions.

Here is one example. Since this newspaper does not have access to the inquiry report it could not establish how the magistrate arrived to the conclusion that the driver lacked the necessary skills. A quick Google search indicates that the British national who was at the wheel of the supercar when the incident happened is “a relative newcomer” to the racing scene who, however, scored a number of successes already. The inquiry may have an answer to that but we cannot find out because of the Attorney General’s decision.

Just this one point suffices to show the pitfalls of being selective when ‘highlighting’ the main findings of a magisterial inquiry, especially in such a delicate matter as this where public interest is so evident.

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.