A man wrongly accused of an armed robbery from a convenience store last August has lost a constitutional bid for compensation.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the police did not act negligently when they arraigned Darryl Luke Borg, 27, over the armed robbery and that the two police CID inspectors who took him to court were justified in treating him as a suspect.
The armed robbery occurred at The Convenience Shop, a grocery store in Mgr Alfred Mifsud Street, Birkirkara, on August 8 last year.
The court heard that CID Police Inspector Joseph Mercieca, who investigates hold-ups, was informed by a colleague, Police Inspector Carlos Cordina, that he had received confidential information that the crime had been committed by Mr Borg who was charged in court the following day and held in custody.
Two days later, Police Inspector Elton Taliana charged Roderick Grech, 22, from Birkirkara, with the same crime after he confessed to having been the culprit.
He had even handed over a balaclava and a plastic toy gun used during the hold-up, which was captured on CCTV.
He was sentenced to 12 months in jail suspended for four years after the court heard that he used the €630 he had stolen to settle gambling debts.
Mr Borg eventually filed a constitutional case against the Attorney General, the Director of Criminal Courts and the Police Commissioner, arguing that his arrest and arraignment were illegal because they were not based on reasonable suspicion.
As long as the suspicions of the police are justified, it is irrelevant whether the circumstances were enough to prove that Mr Borg was guilty
He also submitted that he should have been granted bail and should have been released as soon as the police realised that another man had committed the crime.
Mr Borg also complained that the prosecution had only withdrawn the charges against him three days after Mr Grech had admitted to the crime.
But the court upheld the arguments of the police that the arrest was based on reasonable suspicion, that is a tip-off that was further strengthened by previous convictions Mr Borg had and cases he had been involved in.
The court said it did not result that the police acted carelessly but had done their duty.
Mr Justice Tonio Mallia noted that Mr Borg never raised the illegal arrest claim before in court and that the Magistrates’ Court was right to deny bail given that investigations had still been in their early stage.
The judge commented on what he described as a “breakdown of communication” between different sections of the police force and expressed his frustration that Mr Taliana had not been produced as a witness in this case.
He said the court was expected to rely on the findings of a Police Board inquiry that had looked into the police error and found that Mr Taliana should have informed his superiors of the arrest and admission. It had recommended that disciplinary action be taken against him.
“This court cannot consider the Police Board report as admissible evidence because it does not have access to its files and does not even know whether those who testified before it had done so under oath,” the judge said.
Dismissing Mr Borg’s complaints, Mr Justice Mallia said: “As long as the suspicions of the police are justified, it is irrelevant whether the circumstances were enough to prove that Mr Borg was guilty.
“The police did not act negligently but in line with their duties.”