I remember vividly the reaction in Britain to the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997. Much of the nation bought flowers and laid them as close as possible to any building with which she had been associated. Soon the gates of Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace, St James Palace and the family home in Northamptonshire were submerged under a sea of petals.

They lit candles in jam jars and left them as impromptu shrines. They hung cards and photos on roadside railings and trees in the parks. Diana’s death was tragic, as any sudden death in the prime of life is tragic. It was a genuine expression of popular emotion.

What we have seen with the flowers and candles laid in memory of Daphne Caruana Galizia at the Great Siege Memorial is no different, except in the emotions engendered – one was loved nationally, while the other was admired by some but disliked or even hated by many.

The reaction to Caruana Galizia’s brutal murder – especially the grief by many – is not to be deplored or underestimated. I did not know her socially or personally. But I did know her professional capabilities as an investigative journalist – tenacious, fearless and the most effective Malta has ever known – as well as a divisive commentator on the Maltese social and political scene. My views of her were set out in my tribute in The Times of Malta on October 21, 2017.

I did not like her politics. But we were totally at one in our belief in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression – the liberty to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all – values which go to the heart of western democratic standards.

I regard Caruana Galizia’s commitment to freedom of expression and her fearlessness in promoting it as the utterly redeeming features of her life, which I would like to believe are being commemorated by the ad hoc memorial at the Great Siege Monument. These are the overriding factors that prompted so many people to seek to lay a memorial to her. They are not to be decried and it is wrong that toxic politics – on both sides – has been allowed to intrude.

Despite its totally inappropriate location, the memorial should run its course until an alternative site is identified. The magnitude of emotion that followed Diana’s death in the Tunnel du Pont l’Alma in Paris led to the Flame of Liberty, which stands above the tunnel, to become overnight a makeshift memorial with people laying flowers in her memory.

Those make-shift memorials to Diana in Paris, London and elsewhere were followed subsequently by permanent memorial gardens, playgrounds, walks, and a memorial fountain in Kensington Gardens unveiled by the Queen. A statue to Diana is to be erected by her sons in Kensington Palace in 2019, more than 20 years after her death.

Despite its totally inappropriate location, the memorial should run its course until an alternative site is identified

It is what happens next in Caruana Galizia’s case that needs careful consideration. Should there be a monument to her? To answer that question is to invite the most toxic and politically partisan response, but there are many, I suspect, who would like one to be placed somewhere. Their views should be heard.

While monuments in Malta appear to be erected in a fairly ad hoc manner – almost invariably on the political say-so of whoever holds the reins of power – it may be instructive to know how such matters are handled in London. I choose London for my example since I know it well. But other major cities have similar planning rules in place.

A month ago, a plan to erect a statue in Parliament Square to Margaret Thatcher – probably Britain’s greatest post-war prime minister - was rejected by Westminster City Council. The grounds for its rejection by the planning committee were various. For some reason, her own family refused to support the campaign to honour the Iron Lady. It was also felt that the design was inappropriate because it depicted her in the House of Lords, rather than as Britain’s first female prime minister.

But overridingly I suspect, the council was swayed by two other factors. First, Margaret Thatcher was an immensely divisive figure in British politics and still hated by many. There was an understandable fear that the statue would become a target of protest, vandalism and defacement.

Indeed, Scotland Yard had requested changes to the design of the plinth to include special attachments for material to be erected quickly around it against planned protests. The smooth plinth had also been designed without ledges or hand-holds to prevent protesters climbing onto it.

Secondly, putting up the monument would have broken the so-called “10-year rule”, which was designed to allow for a designated period of reflection to take place before decisions are made over erecting statues of recently deceased figures. Thatcher has been dead only five years. This rule was put in place for a very good reason: to allow partisan passions to cool and enable sober reflection before proceeding.

The 10-year rule fulfils certain key objectives. It allows a breathing space in which a person’s reputation can mature. It helps to ensure their achievements can be assessed dispassionately with proper historical perspective and that the resultant monument is therefore fully justified.

There may, however, be instances – in the wake of a large-scale disaster or the sudden death of a prominent individual – when public demand for a memorial in the short term is irresistible. In these instances a temporary memorial (for example a planting scheme in a garden) will be preferred until the 10 years have elapsed.

There is one other important consideration. Since 1996, Westminster has had a specialist advisory body, the Public Art Advisory Panel, which exists to advise the planning committee on the artistic merit, siting, setting and appropriateness of all new public art proposals.

As the wild passions and emotions in the wake of Caruana Galizia’s murder have shown, there is an urgent need – as in so many other areas of Malta’s administration – to develop a clear set of criteria for dealing with the erection of memorials and monuments in public spaces. We might be well advised to draw on what is done in other major capitals.

(This article was submitted for publication before the events of the last few days were known.)