Claims by former police commissioner Peter Paul Zammit that Inspector Elton Taliana had committed “an offence of a criminal nature” justifying disciplinary action were yesterday dismissed by the officer’s lawyer.
“The former police commissioner is factually wrong. He either did not read the conclusions of the two reports he had commissioned or he wants to continue saying things that are not true,” lawyer Joe Zammit Maempel told this newspaper.
Pointing out that police regulations barred his client from speaking to the press, he said the two inquiry reports clearly indicated that Mr Taliana acted correctly and followed procedure.
An internal police inquiry, published 18 months after it was presented to Mr Zammit, recommended disciplinary action against two CID inspectors after the wrong man was arrested following a hold up. It also found that Mr Taliana, who eventually arrested the right person and brought him to justice, acted according to procedure.
Times of Malta reported last week that, despite the internal inquiry, Mr Zammit had decided to drop disciplinary action against the CID inspectors and insisted on Mr Taliana’s dismissal.
If Mr Zammit was so convinced that Mr Taliana committed a criminal offence, why did he not take action as he was in duty bound to do?
Mr Zammit wrote a piece in this newspaper, saying that Mr Taliana’s case was more serious because his “offence is one of a criminal nature” and cited article 137 of the Criminal Code. This states that a police officer is in duty bound to report to his superior authorities within 24 hours when he is made aware of an unlawful detention.
According to the chronology of events as listed by the Police Board when looking into the same case (see table), Mr Taliana informed his superiors about what he had discovered and investigated in well under 24 hours.
The Police Board found that Mr Taliana had first been informed of the possible involvement of another man (Roderick Grech) at 7pm on August 8, 2013. The suspect was arrested, arraigned and sentenced by the afternoon of the following day.
The Police Board also noted that as soon as Mr Grech pleaded guilty in court, Mr Taliana informed his direct superior and, two hours later, circulated an internal message within the police force about the arraignment and the court sentence.
“If Mr Zammit was so convinced that Mr Taliana committed a criminal offence, why did he not take action as he was in duty bound to do?” Dr Zammit Maempel asked.
Asked for a reaction, Mr Zammit said: “I never stated that Inspector Taliana was in breach of article 137, rather it has always been my position that what he did bordered on this particular criminal offence.”
Declaring that he did not fully agree with the conclusions of the Police Board, he added that the assertion that the 24-hour period had not ended by the time the person concerned walked out of jail was debatable, which only meant that the criminal offence he referred to could not have been fully committed.
He insisted, however, that this did not mean Mr Taliana “did not neglect his duty in failing to report the matter immediately”.
Timeline of the events leading to Roderick Grech’s arraignment*
August 8, 2013
7pm: Elton Taliana receives information about possible involvement of Roderick Grech in hold-up.
7.45pm: Mr Taliana informs duty magistrate and obtains arrest warrant.
Later: Mr Grech is arrested and held at the CID lock-up.
August 9, 2013
9am: Mr Grech speaks to his lawyer. Interrogation starts – refuses to admit.
11am: Mr Grech admits involvement in hold-up and releases statement to police.
Around noon: Mr Taliana arraigns Mr Grech. Admits. Mr Taliana informs his superior about court decision.
2.45pm: Mr Taliana circulates internal message on Mr Grech’s arraignment and conviction.
*according to the Police Board inquiry