Recording police interrogations would not only suit the defence but also prosecuting officers, lawyers working in criminal law believe.

A number of lawyers who spoke to this newspaper have called for the introduction of the practice as soon as possible to avoid innuendoes about what may have actually happened during the investigation of crimes.

Although Malta recently made a leap forward by introducing the right for a suspect to consult a lawyer prior to his interrogation, the Criminal Code still does not give the lawyer the right to be present during the actual questioning.

The lawyers argued that audio and video recordings of interrogations would not only serve to carry out justice in the best way possible, but also avoid any possible claims of wrongdoing by the suspect.

The police already record certain interrogations but the decision on which are recorded and which are not depends on the case and the police inspector’s judgment.

The lawyers said the more transparent the interrogations and the investigation process were, the better it was for the administration of justice.

A recent case which springs to mind is the police questioning of former Sliema mayor Nikki Dimech, who claimed he only admitted to requesting commissions “under duress”. He also claimed he was having a panic attack during the interrogations and was not allowed to use his asthma inhaler, an allegation the police have refuted.

But a former police inspector, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that while he was not against recording, there could be logistical problems unless the right equipment and resources were available.

He said that during his career, he only recorded interrogations on a couple of occasions and these dealt with serious crime, such as a murder. In other cases, a typed statement during the course of the interrogation was always considered enough.

Criminal lawyer Arthur Azzopardi said recording systems were already used in other countries where video recording of police interrogations was “the norm”.

He said the recordings could be useful if there was doubt that something was said out of context or if the tonality of the reply wanted to be studied.

Dr Azzopardi also pressed for a change in the law for lawyers to be present during the actual interrogation, saying the audio and video recordings should be taken even if the lawyer was present.

“A video recording could come in useful for both the prosecution as well as the defence,” he said.

Another criminal lawyer, Stefano Filletti, argued that recording police interrogations “would do away with innuendoes of what actually happens in that interviewing room”.

He said such a recording would put people’s minds at rest that there was no intimidation during the interrogation or that the prosecuting office did not promise the accused anything if he admitted to the charges being brought against him.

In the UK, the compulsory recording of interrogations was introduced following allegations of impropriety by the police, he said.

Referring to the paraphrasing during police statements, Dr Filletti said this could be detrimental to the suspect as his words could be taken out of context or simply misunderstood.

Lawyer Manwel Mallia agreed that ths idea, which was standard procedure in other jurisdictions, was “worth discussing with all involved”.

He said recorded interrogations, if ever introduced, could not be edited in any way to give an advantage to any party.

“At present, the situation is similar to that in an operating theatre. If anything goes wrong during surgery, there is no way you can rewind to see what happened especially if a person is under anaesthesia,” he said.

The former police inspector believes if interrogations were to start being recorded, it would not only suit the defence but also the prosecution.

“With such a recording, the officer can have peace of mind and no one can tarnish his reputation with any claims of wrongdoing,” he said.

He said although the Criminal Investigations Department had two recording suites at the police headquarters, this was not enough if several inspectors were all rushing against time because of the 48-hour detention period.

“When someone is in custody, time is against you. You have to allow time for rest and whole mornings in court seeing to other cases. It’s not always logistically possible because there are administrative aspects which have to be seen to, such as having an operator to monitor the equipment. You have interrogations which are over within one hour but others which last up to eight hours.”

Questions sent to Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici for his opinion on the matter remained unanswered at the time of writing.