With reference to the report De La Salle College Cleared of Favouritism (June 17), the record needs to be set straight. Moreover, it must be stated that we, the plaintiffs in the case in question, Jean-Pierre and Iliana Azzopardi had, previous to this report, successfully done everything within our power to keep George Dunbar Cousin’s name out of the public’s eye, considering that we had no axe to grind with him, as our dispute related to what we considered, and still consider to be, De La Salle College’s unfair treatment of our son, Michael.

To start off with, the report erroneously stated, twice over, that the presiding judge was Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi, when in fact, the presiding judge concerned was Mr Justice J. R. Micallef. Also, contrary to what was mistakenly stated, our son never attended De La Salle College.

Moreover, your translation of “mala fidi” (normally translated to “bad faith”) with the word “maliciously”, again twice over, is to say the least, somewhat over the top.

The Times also failed to report the fact that we had testified that, notwithstanding our repeated requests, at no stage prior to the instituting of proceedings against De La Salle College, were we informed by any college representative that a pass in Maltese O Level was not, according to the college, compulsory and that the college administration, for reasons kept to itself, only did so for the very first time during the court case proceedings.

More importantly, the report merited at least a mention of the judge’s censuring of De La Salle’s representative’s unacceptable behaviour. Readers will no doubt be interested to learn what Mr Justice Micallef had to say about Bro. David Mizzi, De La Salle’s sixth form ex-assistant headmaster. The following paragraph has been freely translated from the relative original Maltese version of the judge’s decision delivered on June 16:

“It is true – and on this matter the plaintiffs had reason to emphasise and comment at length – that the witness (Bro. David) Mizzi did not explain why he had assured the Archbishop’s and the Education Department’s delegates that (George) Dunbar-Cousin had qualified in Maltese, even when Maltese was not obligatory and when he had not in fact obtained a pass in that subject by the time the selection board had finalised the selection process. This does not reflect well, but neither does it confirm that the selection process was defective, because it is clear that Bro. Mizzi had done this after the (selection) process had ended and that he had done this for motives which, he says, he thought, would quickly close the grave’s lid on this case. In fact, that line of behaviour led to suspicions and fuelled the plaintiffs’ anger. More so, if it is really the case, that this whole bonfire, was ignited by the student Mr Dunbar Cousin’s senseless and boastful remarks that he knew for sure that he was going to enter the College’s sixth form course (class 1994-1996).

“But in the court’s opinion, this perception on plaintiffs’ part does not translate in a defective process or is procedurally tainted with mala fides. It is stated once again that the Court can only rely on what results from the court records, and from those, the Court does not see that up to the time that the selection took place, some form of preference, detrimental to the plaintiff (Michael) Azzopardi had taken place, when compared to the student Mr Dunbar-Cousin”.

There can be no doubt that Bro. Mizzi was duty bound to tell the Archbishop’s and the Education Department’s representatives the truth, however, he had elected not to inform these same representatives, at the outset of this dispute, that a pass in Maltese at O Level standard, was not a compulsory requirement for Mr Dunbar-Cousin to be accepted to De La Salle’s sixth form, class 1994-1996; if that were really the case. Had Bro. Mizzi done so, an “unnecessary” 15-year lawsuit, which we had filed against De La Salle College, solely on a matter of principle, could have possibly been avoided.

We, however, with great respect, still feel that other crucial testimony and evidence in this case were not given sufficient consideration and will therefore, once again with great respect, be appealing the Civil Court’s decision.