A judge has declined to pronounce himself on a case involving a man’s claim that his fundamental rights were breached when he was arrested and detained in squalid conditions at the Sliema police station.

Consequently, the constitutional application filed by Ivan Zammit against the Commissioner of Police and Sergeant Ramon Mifsud from the Rapid Intervention Unit was rejected.

The case dates back to September last year when Mr Zammit, who runs a shop by the name of Collections, along the Gżira front, was detained by the police following an argument outside his outlet regarding a parking issue.

In a news conference held a few weeks following the incident, the man’s lawyer Etienne Calleja had accused the police of dumping his client in a van “like a sack of potatoes”.

The court heard that the police were called to intervene following complaints that Mr Zammit’s car was blocking another vehicle.

Mr Zammit had refused to move his car, insisting that he was parked correctly. The argument escalated, and Mr Zammit was arrested and taken to the Sliema police station for questioning, where he spent three-and-a-half hours in a cell.

Subsequently, he filed an application before the Constitutional Court claiming he was kept in “inhumane and degrading” conditions. He complained that the police had used excessive force against him when he refused to present his identity card.

Mr Zammit complained that he was held in a small, unventilated cell with no water.

In its decision the court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, noted that the complainant had also filed a criminal complaint against the Commissioner of Police and the RIU officer involved. Disciplinary action had been taken against the latter.

Moreover, a separate complaint had also been filed with the Internal Affairs Unit of the police.

The judge refused to conclude on the merits of this case, saying that Mr Zammit had already sought other means to seek redress. The decision was based on two provisos in the Constitution and the European Convention Act regarding the procedure for the enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. They say the court may, if it considers it desirable, decline to exercise its powers “where it is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are or have been available to the person concerned under any other ordinary law”.