Last Tuesday evening, a 32-year-old English barrister was shooting at will through the windows of his upmarket Chelsea home after an argument with his wife. Armed police arrived at the scene. There were shots, then attempts at negotiation, then more shots. At 9.30 p.m., around five hours after the trouble began, the man was dead.
Because of the commotion that ensued, the media could view parts of the confrontation. They were also informed of the death. By Friday, just two full days after the incident, an inquest was told that the barrister had been shot at least five times by police. The wounds caused severe damage to his brain, heart and liver. It also emerged that different types of bullet had been used.
Although the independent inquiry into the incident, which will also seek to establish whether police handled the situation correctly, may take six months to complete, all this information was in the public domain within 72 hours.
Compare that with how information reluctantly seeped out about the incident involving Nicholas Azzopardi, who had what turned out to be a fatal fall while he was in police custody in Floriana on April 8.
Local police did not deem it necessary to make a statement informing the public about the circumstances surrounding Mr Azzopardi's fall - this task was instead performed by newspapers. Nor do we yet officially know the results of the post-mortem, which establishes the cause of death.
What there has been is claim and counter-claim. First, on the part of Mr Azzopardi's family who are saying he was beaten up by police before being flung from the bastion behind the Floriana headquarters. Then, from police sources saying the man fell to his death after a policeman tried to save him. Why was this not said officially, and before the man died?
To further complicate matters, we now have not one, but two inquiries into the same incident. Yet still no official facts on which to proceed.
This is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs that must be remedied. Perhaps it is too late for this case, but there are certain measures necessary for ones that follow to ensure greater efficiencyand transparency in the justice system.
The first step that should be taken, immediately, is for suspects to be given access to a lawyer not just before they are questioned by police, but throughout the entire process. This does not just help safeguard the rights of the accused - by preventing improper questioning or conduct during the course of interrogation - but it will also assist the police should any allegations against them be made.
Well-intentioned local lawyers have called for a debate on such a proposal, which is already contained within a dormant section of the Criminal Code. But there is no need when the argument for has as much force as a tidal wave. Any attempt by police to say that the presence of lawyers may reduce their conviction rate should be dismissed outright with the contempt it deserves.
Another priority is the installation of timed video recording equipment in all areas where the questioning of suspects takes place, and there should be a legal requirement to use it at all times. This would have been of great value in the Azzopardi case. How can we live in an age where children use webcams to chat with one another and where police are not required to film their interrogations?
Thirdly, it is time for a proper debate to take place on taking prosecutions out of the hands of police, whose role should be to prevent and deal with the act of crime itself rather than administer the after-effects of it. This will not just make the force a more effective unit, but will also go some way to ensuring that there is a good chance of conviction when a case gets to court, thereby saving time there as well.
If the English barrister had survived the incident, he would have benefitted from all these measures. Mr Azzopardi did not. Whose shoes would you rather be in?