Police Commissioner Peter Paul Zammit’s argument against the court ruling upholding Norman Vella’s application to have his belongings returned were yesterday described as fallacious by two criminal lawyers.
Joe Giglio and Roberto Montalto said that, in any scenario, there must exist a reasonable suspicion that somebody committed a crime.
On Wednesday, Magistrate Marseann Farrugia ordered the police to return Mr Vella’s mobile phone and computer tablet, ruling they had seized his belongings in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime.
The case erupted on Sunday when Mr Vella, a former broadcaster who now works as an immigration official, was questioned by the police following reports that he tried to take a photograph of two government officials in a restricted area at the airport.
In the wake of the court ruling, the Police Commissioner vehemently defended the conduct of his officers. He told this newspaper the court had confused the reasonable suspicion the police needed to investigate an offence with the need to investigate an object.
Mr Zammit said that, in this particular case, the police were following the same practice used in the past. He questioned whether such practice should be changed on the basis of a decree by “the lowest of the lowest court”.
There must always be a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed an offence
However, lawyers asked to share their views dismissed such arguments saying the ruling “had stated the obvious”.
Dr Montalto said that after going through the ruling he concluded that there was no confusion, as the Police Commissioner had claimed.
He said the ruling tried to create conformity on the prerequisites of any investigation and its possible outcomes – be it an arrest, a search warrant or the seizure of property.
He said the court ruled that the seizure of an item had to be linked with an investigation based on reasonable suspicion, adding he could not conceive how the court could have got confused, as Mr Zammit had claimed.
He said that, going by Maltese laws, he failed to understand which legal provision could have been invoked in this case.
He remarked that, from a legal aspect, the assertion that this could have led to disclosure of public secrets “verged on the ridiculous”.
He explained that Chapter 405 of Maltese law – the Airports and Civil Aviation Act – lists those behaviours that are only deemed as punishable if they occurred inside an airport or onboard an aircraft. However, there was no reference to a ban on the use of communications or electronic equipment.
To Dr Giglio, the court’s ruling was crystal clear. There was no underlying provision on which the police could seize belongings without having a reasonable suspicion. “Otherwise, you have a blanket provision for the police to seize people’s property to see if there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime,” he said.
“I beg to differ with the comments made by the Police Commissioner because both when you are arresting a person and also when you are about to seize their property there must always be a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed an offence,” he said.