The inquiry board looking into the shooting incident couches its conclusions very carefully but, even though it absolves Minister Manuel Mallia of any involvement in the cover-up, it questions the statements he made to the inquiry.

Dr Mallia insisted with the inquiry board that the version of the incident he repeated ­– that his driver had fired warnings shots – came to him from Mr Sheehan and Acting Commissioner Ray Zammit.

“However,” the board points out, “even if [Dr] Mallia believed this version, certainly he had to abandon this version, because he himself stated in the last hearing [with the board of inquiry] that he knew that PC Sheehan did not shoot into the air but had shot in the direction of [Steven] Smith’s car and effectively hit it.”

Even if Minister Mallia is believed that he never saw the statement before it was published, he certainly cannot say that he was not aware of its content

When he appeared before the board, the minister said he “may” have been made aware of this at the Police Depot, where he was attending a function, at the time of the incident, and “certainly” on the way back home that night because his other driver, Paul Vella – who went to the scene of the crime – had told him as much.

Another issue arose over the fact that the minister claimed he had not seen the draft of the contentious press release issued on the night of the shooting. This was contradicted by the Acting Commissioner, who insisted that he had shown him the draft before it was released.

On this point, the board said that, at the very least, the minister was aware of its content since, as testified by the government head of communications Kurt Farrugia, during a conversation he had with the Acting Commissioner, he could hear Dr Mallia in the background say “release the statement, release the statement, release the statement”, followed by “as it is”.

The board does not come to a definitive judgment about this point but says that the various testimonies left it with “the sensation that the minister had seen the statement or that it had been read to him”.

Moreover, it adds: “Even if [Dr] Mallia is to be believed that he never saw the statement before it was published, he certainly cannot say that he was not aware of its content, especially in respect to the claim that PC Sheehan had fired [shots] into the air.”

The board concludes that, even though there is no evidence to prove that he acted to cover up PC Sheehan’s actions, Dr Mallia still carries responsibility for the fact that the official statement issued by the ministry was incorrect. He should have made sure that the mistake was not made in the first place; however, once it was done, he should have ensured that it was corrected immediately as it became known that there was a problem.

Instead, when Mr Farrugia and his own communications coordinator, Ramona Attard, suggested that a correction should be issued, the minister said first it should be established how the mistake happened and that the statement should be “issued once we have all the clear facts”.