Police Commissioner Peter Paul Zammit has defended the force’s actions after a court ruled it had seized a former TV presenter’s mobile phone and iPad without having reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime.
In comments to Times of Malta last night, Mr Zammit said the magistrate had mixed up the reasonable suspicion the police needed to investigate an offence and that needed to investigate an object.
Norman Vella’s mobile and tablet were taken following an allegation that he had taken pictures of two government officials in a restricted area – where he works as an immigration officer – and sent them to blogger Daphne Caruna Galizia.
Both he and Ms Caruana Galizia denied the allegation.
Mr Vella then filed a court application for the return of the devices, and Magistrate Marseann Farrugia ruled against the police on Wednesday, instructing them to give the items back to him.
Following the ruling, the Nationalist Party called on Dr Muscat and the Police Commissioner to assume political responsibility.
Mr Zammit told this newspaper that his officers had acted correctly when they gathered and sealed the mobile and tablet in question as an investigator’s primary concern was always that of gathering evidence in connection with an ongoing investigation.
“The police did whatever it was duty-bound to do, by investigating crimes and conserving evidence which it deemed as relevant to its case.
“The police always start from the stage of a suspicion which could lead to court action. In this case no court action was taken and Mr Vella’s mobile and tablet were exhibited in court, sealed according to established practice,” Mr Zammit said.
He said Magistrate Farrugia had mixed up the object with the offence “which are totally different”.
“If I, as the investigator, believe or suspect that an object was used in the commission of a crime, I have the obligation to collect that object and preserve it. In this case, I conserved the evidence and then left it up to the court to appoint its experts to analyse them because that would give it weight in a court of law.”
He explained that this was a practice that had been used for several years and questioned whether it should be changed on the basis of a “decree by the lowest of all courts”.
“Is this decree enough to change a practice which has been used for so long? I would say no. Had it been the Court of Constitutional Appeal, my reply would have been yes. But this is the lowest of the lowest court,” he said.
Did the police not analyse the mobile to establish if any photos had been taken? “Of course not because I would not have liked to be accused of a frame-up. Our job as the police was to conserve evidence and that is what we did,” he repeated.
Questions were also sent to the Office of the Prime Minister but remained unanswered.
Testifying in court, Police Commissioner Zammit said the police were investigating Mr Vella because he could not divulge information about passenger movements, as he was alleged to have done.
But Magistrate Farrugia lambasted the police for taking away the items when they had “no reasonable suspicion” he had committed a crime.
Opposition home affairs spokesman Jason Azzopardi said the court decision had “again confirmed a case of abuse of power by the Commissioner of Police and the Government” and called on the Commissioner and Prime Minister to bear responsibility.